Hi 


wm 


li:ili';!llll[l'!:iliilllltl;i!l!;i 


niniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiii'w'iiii  ;:!ii 


LIBRARY    1 

UNIVERSITY  OF     I 
^  CALIFORNIA^ 


Edward  C.M.Tower 


Ex  Libris 


^TN 


t-dooo-osx^   ^  •  \N .  \  troj^N 


3.JB, 


'(^yi€d, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/catholicityinitsOOewerricli 


Catholicity 


IN  ITS  RELATIONSHIP  TO 


Protestantism  and  Romanism 


SIX   CONFER.ENCES 

Delivered   a>.t  Ne>vaLrk.    N.  J.,  a^t  the  Request  of  LeaLding 
LcLymien  <sf  tKa^t  City 


BY 
THE    R.EV.    F.   C.   EWER,   S.T.D. 


Mil^vdLukee: 
©"Ae    Young    ChvjrcKman     Co 


CorvKiGHT  BY  G.  P.  Pittnam's  Sons,  itTt. 


I  =^ 


LOAN  STACK 


\9-18 


TO     THE 

REV.    S.    BARING    GOULD, 

«HOSE    TEACHINGS     IN    THE    CHURCH    HAVE    LENT    COURAGE 
AND     INSPIRATION    TO    THE    AUTHOR, 

T  H  I  S    V  O  L  U  M  E 

IS 

GRATEFULLY     DEDICATED, 

BY      HIS      BROTHER      IN      THE      CATHOLIC      FAITH, 

F.    C.    EWER. 


140 


TO    THE    READER. 


The  Addresses  in  .his  volume  were  prepared 
and  delivered  in  compliance  with  the  following  re- 
quest, signeG  by  some  thirty  laymen  from  every 
Parish  in  the  city  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  viz.  : 

"  Impressed  with  a  conviction  that  the  Word  of 
God  sets  forth  a  distinct  System  of  Truth,  which  is 
held  and  fully  taught  by  the  Church ;  and  also  that 
a  clear  understanding  and  reception  of  the  Funda- 
mental Teachings  of  the  Christian  Religion  are 
necessary  for  the  proper  development  of  man's 
spiritual  life ;  and,  further,  convinced  that  a  desire 
exists  on  the  part  of  many  earnest-minded  men  to 
know  of  a  System  of  Faith  resting  on  a  surer  basis 
than  individual  opinion,  we,  laymen  of  the  Church 
in  Newark,  respectfully  invite  you  to  deliver  in  our 
city  a  series  of  Conferences  on  the  Church  as  the 
Custodian  and  Teacher  of  Divine  Truth,  in  opposi- 
tion to  ultra-Protestantism,  and  to  the  anti-Catholic 
claims  of  the  Papal  Church." 

To  this  request  the  following  reply  was  sent,  viz. : 


Vi  To  the  Reader. 

New  York,  April  24th,  1878. 
Gentlemen  : 

I  was  yesterday  in  receipt  of  your  communica- 
tion, requesting  me  to  deliver  in  Newark  a  series  of 
Addresses  on  Catholicity  in  Its  Relationship  to 
Protestantism  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Romanism 
on  the  other. 

I  understand  from  the  gentleman  who  brought 
me  your  communication,  that  your  desire  is  to  have 
the  Conferences  delivered  on  the  Wednesday  even- 
ings in  May  and  early  June  ;  and  that  three  of  them 
be  on  the  subject  of  Catholicity  in  Its  Relationship 
to  Protestantism,  and  three  on  Catholicity  in  Its 
Relationship  to  Romanism. 

I  do  not  fail  to  recognize  the  importance  of  this 
call ;  first,  in  the  subject  it  suggests,  and  secondly, 
in  the  number  and  high  standing  in  the  Church  and 
in  the  community  of  the  citizens  by  whom  it  is 
signed.  And  I  desire  to  thank  you  for  the  confi- 
dence which  it  extends  to  me. 

Your  call  comes  at  a  time  when  I  am  very  much 
pressed  with  Parochial  duties  ;  and  in  justice  both 
to  the  subject  and  to  yourselves,  I  could  have  wished 
to  have  the  comparative  leisure  of  the  months  of 
June,  July,  and  August,  in  which  to  prepare  the 
Conferences  you  desire. 

But  on  the  assurance  of  the  gentleman  who  bore 
me  your  letter,  that  you  would  be  entirely  satisfied, 


To  the  Reader.  vii 

and  would  not  deem  me  discourteous,  should  I  use 
material  for  the  first  three  Conferences  which  has 
already  been  used  and  is  somewhat  known  to  por- 
tions of  the  public,  I  comply  with  your  request ;  and 
will  endeavor  to  be  with  you  for  the  first  address  on 
Wednesday  evening,  May  the  first. 
With  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

F.  C.  EWER. 

However,  on  further  consideration,  the  author 
resolved  not  to  use  any  of  the  material  contained  in 
his  volume  on  "  The  Failure  of  Protestantism,"  as 
that  work  had  already  passed  through  several  edi- 
tions, and  would,  moreover,  have  furnished  to  his 
hand  sermons,  rather  than  such  religious  addresses 
calculated  for  a  secular  audience,  as  the  request 
called  for. 

In  preparing  the  following  addresses  from  week 
to  week,  therefore,  as  they  were  delivered,  he  has 
endeavored,  by  the  development  of  an  argument 
which  begins  in  the  First  Address  and  does  not  close 
until  the  end  of  the  Sixth,  to  show  the  sceptic,  first, 
why  he  should  be  a  Christian  rather  than  an  Infidel, 
or  a  Unitarian  in  belief ;  secondly,  a  Catholic  rather 
than  a  Protestant ;  and  lastly,  an  Anglican  Catholic 
rather  than  a  Roman  Catholic. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  of  a  number  of 


viii  To  the  Reader. 

those  who  desire  to  have  these  Addresses  in  book- 
form,  a  Sermon  has  been  added,  which  the  author 
was  invited  to  prepare  and  preach  last  year  before 
the  members  of  an  Evangelical  Parish,  in  explana- 
tion of  the  Object  and  Meaning  of  the  Catholic 
Movement  in  the  Anglican  Communion. 


CONTENTS 


First  Conference. 

Catholicity,  a  Continent  of  Certainty;  Protestantism, 
an  Ocean  of  Conjecture I 

Second  Conference: 

Catholicity,  a  Life  and  an  Oi^anizer ;  Protestantism, 
a  Disorganizer  and  a  Death ^ 43 

Third  Conference: 

The  Catholic  Church,  both  Perfect  and  Imperfect. — 
Leaves  Room  for  Play  of  Mental  Activity. — Catho- 
licity, the  "  Yea  "  of  Christianity  ;  Protestantism, 
the  "  Nay."— True  Cause  of  Protestant  "  Reforma- 
tion."—  Protestantism,  Diversity  wtthout  Organic 
•  Unity  ;  Rome  Organic  Unity  without  Diversity ; 
Catholicity,  Organic  Unity  in  Diversity 74 

Fourth  Conference: 

Functions  of  Reason  in  Religion. — Recapitulation. — 
Catholicity  in  History.  —  Which  is  the  Catholic 
Church? — Difference  between  the  Catholic  and  the 
Roman  Idea  of  the  Unity  of  the  Church.  The  Ro- 
man  Idea  essentially  the  same  as  the  Protestant. — 
The  Roman  Idea  not  sustained  either  by  Scripture 
OT  by  History 1 29 


X  Contents, 

Fifth  Conference:  faoi 

Constitution  of  The  Catholic  Church  in  Its  Priestly, 
Sacrificial,  Prophetic,  and  Regal  Functions. — Ro- 
manism overthrows  this  Constitution. — The  Church's 
Government  Episcopal,  not  Papal. — Gallicanism  a 
Logical  Mistake. — Hierarchy  within  the  Catholic 
Episcopate.  —  Papal  Supremacy  not  Sustained  by 
Scripture    i66 

Sixth  Conference: 

The  Papal  Autocracy  not  Sustained  by  History. — 
Caution  with  regard  to  Papal  Controversial  Books. 
—The  Theory  of  the  Anglican  Church,  Catholic, 
though  Her  Present  Ritual  Practice  be  Uncatholic  ; 
The  Theory  of  the  Roman  Church,  Uncatholic, 
though  Her  Present  Ritual  Practice  be  Catholic. — 
Prophecy  touching  Rome's  need  for  Conversion,  and 
Her  Three-fold  Denial  of  Christ. — Conclusion 2ig 

Sermon  : 

The  Object  and  Meaning  of  the  Catholic  Movement  in 
the  Anglican  Communion 367 


NOTES. 

N.  B. — This  edition  has  been  carefully  corrected 
from  notes  made  by  Dr.  Ewer  on  the  margins  of  his 
library  copy;  but  the  following  additions  could  not 
be  conveniently  introduced  into  the  body  of  the  book. 

Page  41,  line  7,  after  "Himself,"  add  "But  how  do 
we  know  that  this  is  the  Body  of  God  on  earth  ? 
Gentlemen,  there  is  and  has  been  no  other  organic 
form  in  time  that  claims  to  be  God's  earthly  Body. 
If  then  it  must  be  that  He  is  on  earth  in  a  body 
somewhere,  this  alone  must  be  that  Body.  If  He  is 
on  earth,  surely  that  Body  in  which  He  is  visible 
would  be  self-conscious  of  its  pre-eminence  among 
all  other  earthly  organisms.  But  no  other  than  one 
only,  viz.,  the  Catholic  Church,  claims  this  pre-emi- 
nence." 

Page  171,  line  2,  after  "Ordination,"  add  "takes 
a  member  of  the  Church  and  binds  him  into  unity 
with  His  Priestly  body." 


Notes. 

Page  172,  line  11,  after  *'Body  on  earth,"  add 
**  Christ's  Real  Presence  in  Heaven  and  Christ's 
Sacramental  Presence  on  our  altars." 

Page  226,  line  15,  after  "it  is  all  novel,"  add 
"  Thus  when  a  Protestant  rouses  up  to  run  headlong 
away  from  Protestantism,  Rome  by  the  simplicity  of 
its  system  readily  catches  his  attention,  his  compre- 
hension and  his  acceptance." 

Page  263,  line  4,  after  "He  knew  that,"  add 
"  those  who  would  be  called." 


CATHOLICITY,  PROTESTANTISM 
AND   ROMANISM. 


FIRST    CONFERENCE. 

Catholicity,   a  Continent  of  Certainty:   Protestant- 
ISM,  AN  Ocean  of  Conjecture. 

Gentlemen, 

The  most  solemn  question  a  man  can  put  to  him- 
self is,  What  is  Truth  ?  We  are  somewhere  in  a  uni- 
verse of  complicated  fact  and  intricate  phenomena; 
but  where  ?  We  exist  now ;  but  where  along  the  flow 
of  the  eternal  is  that  "  now  "  set  ?  In  this  universe, 
whose  bounds  we  know  not,  complexity  pervades  every 
part ;  it  is  within  us,  it  stretches  away  behind  the 
farthest  stars,  it  comes  up  to  us  from  an  eternity  be- 
hind, and  goes  on  to  an  eternity  before  us.  All  the 
facts  and  phenomena  of  this  vast  and  intricate  scene 
move  with  perfect  harmony,  because  guided  by  the 
great  single  will  of  God.  All,  do  I  say  ?  All  but  mar 
and  demons.     Set  in  this  universe,  to  act  in  discord 


2         Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Rotnamstn. 

with  its  laws  and  complex  movement,  is  misery,  dis- 
aster and  death.  To  move  in  accordance  with  the 
All  is  peace,  success,  life.  Now,  to  have  the  order  of 
ideas  within  correspond  with  the  order  of  fact  and 
phenomena  without,  is  to  have  within  us  the  Truth  ; 
this,  therefore,  is  to  have  the  means  of  life.  To  have 
the  order  of  ideas  within  not  correspond  with  the 
order  of  phenomena  without — this  is  error ;  and  acting 
on  it  is  disaster,  misery,  death. 

You  have  not  come  up  here  to  consider  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  order  of  ideas  within  and 
the  order  of  all  fact  and  phenomena  without.  Scientif- 
ic, political,  financial,  artistic  fact  and  phenomena  you 
care  not  for  ;  for  this  world  passeth  away.  No,  the 
correspondence  you  wish,  is  that  between  the  order  of 
ideas  within  and  the  order  of  those  unseen  facts  and 
phenomena  that  lie  beyond  the  limits  of  the  natural 
and  below  the  horizon  of  time.  What  is  Truth  there  ? 
Vour  question  is  a  question,  then,  of  life  or  death. 
We  have  to  live  but  once ;  we  have  to  die  but  once. 
How  shall  we  live  aright .?,  How  shall  we  die  aright .' 
Once  only  can  we  shape  our  course  for  eternity.  It  is 
according  to  error  or  according  to  truth.  It  is  either 
to  sail  into  correspondence  evenastmg  with  the  com- 
plex facts  and  phenonaen.'\  o*  the  eternal  and  the  su- 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  3 

pernatura.,  or  to  sail  into  a  miserable  discord  with 
them  ;  it  is  either,  then,  unto  life,  or  unto  that  whose 
only  fitting  name  is  death.  For,  an  extraneous  parti- 
cle,  caught  in  a  vast  machine  and  out  of  harmony  with 
its  movements,  is  but  crushed  and  ground  by  the  re- 
sistless, ceaseless  action  of  that  in  which  it  is  set. 
God,  time,  eternity,  and  all  that  fills  them — this  is  the 
vast  machine  in  which  you  are  set.  You  have  come 
up  here,  therefore,  to  ask,  What  is  Truth  ?  to  seek  to 
bring  the  order  of  your  ideas  into  correspondence 
with  the  order  of  supernatural  fact  and  movement,  ex- 
ternal to  yourselves,  unalterable  and  eternal. 

But  a  question  is  "an  hunger."  For  who  would 
ask  for  what  he  already  has  ?  Three  hundred  years 
ago  Luther  and  Calvin  announced  that  they  had  the 
Truth.  But  the  stormy  seas  of  private  judgment  and 
of  human  criticism  upon  which  they  launched  it,  and 
the  detective  solvents  of  inexorable  logic  which  they 
challenged,  have  been  too  much  for  it.  Calvin  can- 
not answer  Channing ;  Channing  cannot  answer  Par- 
ker ;  Parker  cannot  answer  Frothingham.  Lapsing 
time,  too,  hath  brought  its  strain  upon  it  \  lapsing 
time,  which  is  the  Divine  criticism  on  all  systems,  hath 
confronted  it  with  unexpected  situations,  hath  stretched 
it  upon  new  problems  for  which,  in  its  human  infirmity^ 


4         Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

it  had  not  foreprovided  ;  and,  lo !  it  is  rent  and  gone 
to  pieces.  After  three  hundred  years  you  behold  it  a 
miserable  raft,  its  fragments  floating  apart  like  the 
mere  flying  rack  of  the  heavens.  And  you  behold 
poor  remnants  only  of  the  great  nations  clinging  to  its 
parted  and  broken  logs,  and  earnest  thinking  men  at 
their  wits'  end  to  know  what  is  Truth.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  preservation  of  Christianity  on  earth. 

Let  me  pause  here  a  moment.  How  is  it  that  I 
am  summoned  here  by  citizens  of  widely  variant  views  ? 
What  has  happened  in  the  last  ten  years  t  The  world 
does  not  stop.  Truth  may  be  drowned  by  the  cries 
of  ridicule  ;  but  the  hearts  of  the  silent  people,  who 
are  watching  it,  are  ever  loyal  to  it,  even  in  its  degra- 
dation on  Calvary  ;  and  there  is  no  device  yet  dis- 
covered that  shall  transubstantiate,  in  their  eyes, 
either  ridicule  or  prejudice  into  argument.  In  1868 
the  solemn  Indictment  against  Protestantism,  drawn 
up  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  behalf  of  dying  souls,  and 
uttered  from  Christ  Church,  Murray  Hill,  was  met, 
not  by  argument,  but  only  by  a  gale  of  holy  maledic- 
tion and  impotent  scorn.  But  those  who  felt  with  the 
penman  of  that  Indictment  have  bided  their  time. 
For  there  is  no  device  yet  discovered  that  can  prolong 
the  life  of  an  excitement,  and  save  it  from  sinking  in- 


Protestantism  and  Romanism,  5 

to  a  calm  in  which  the  quiet  voice  of  argument  can 
again  be  heard.  I  look  around,  and,  lo,  ten  years 
have  wrought  a  change.  In  St.  Louis,  in  Wisconsin, 
East  and  West,  the  challenge  to  Protestantism  is  taken 
up  again  and  begins  to  swell.  And  here,  in  1878,  I 
call  you  to  mark  the  pregnant  fact,  that,  as  that  In- 
dictment was  not  in  a  single  instance  answered  in 
1868,  so  it  has  not  been  answered  since.  And  here, 
as  a  priest  of  God  Almighty's  Catholic  Church,  I  call 
again  from  these  steps  of  His  holy  Altar  for  an  answer 
to  that  Indictment,  if  it  can  be  given. 

If  any  one  claims  again  that  steamboats  and 
cotton  mills  are  Protestantism,  one  can  only  say  that 
again  the  claim  calls  for  no  notice.  Protestantism  a 
failure  1  Why,  look  at  your  lucifer  matches,  your 
locomotives  and  suspension  bridges !  And  one,  gaz- 
ing with  sad  eye  upon  the  five  points  of  Calvinism, 
upon  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  justification  by  faith, 
upon  the  rule  of  private  Scriptural  interpretation,  upon 
absolute  predestination,  effectual  grace,  final  persever- 
ance and  infant  damnation,  looked  away  from  Protes- 
tantism as  he  was  bidden,  and  observed  the  patent 
reapers  and  sewing  machines,  and  failed  to  see  the 
connection.  No  one  ever  charged  the  inventive 
faculty  of  man  with  being  a  failure  when  acting  in  the 


6         Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

natural  realm.  It  was  the  inventive  faculty  of  fallible 
man  operating  in  the  supernatural  realm,  and  substi- 
tuting  there  a  human  for  a  Divine  contrivance  oi  sal 
vation  that  had  failed. 

In  short,  the  attempt  was  made  to  identify  Protes- 
tantism with  the  Nineteenth  Century  ;  and,  because  the 
Nineteenth  Century  was  clearly  a  success,  to  non-suit 
the  indictment  against  Protestantism.  This  was 
shrewd,  but  not  sagacious.  With  many  it  succeeded 
for  a  time.  Grave  critics  in  newspaper  and  magazine 
flew  at  the  volume  of  sermons  entitled  "  The  Failure  of 
Protestantism,"  condemned  it  out  and  out,  declaiing 
in  the  same  breath  that  they  had  not  even  read  it,  and 
did  not  need  to.  One  eminent  New  York  clergyman 
received  a  service  of  silver  plate  from  his  parishioners, 
for  proving  that  the  Nineteenth  Century  was  not  a 
failure,  and  that  Romanism  was  an  error;  neither 
pastor  nor  people  having  the  slightest  conception  of 
the  comical  attitude  in  which  they  had  placed  them- 
selves. 

No  one  had  charged  that  the  Nineteenth  Century 
was  a  failure,  or  claimed  that  Romanism  was  true. 
Protestantism  is  something  that  exists  in  modern 
times  ;  now,  if  not  only  modern  times,  but  also  every- 
thing that  is  in  modern  times,  are  successes,  then  are 


Protestantism  a?id  Romanism.  7 

die  Comtean  school  of  Positivism,  and  Emersonian 
Pantheism,  and  Spiritualism,  and  Fourierism  and 
Mormonism  successes. 

Protestantism  was  set  up  as  the  Cause  of  all  the 
glories  of  the  Nineteenth  Century.  What !  the  reli- 
gious dogma  that  says  :  "  Away  with  God's  Apostolic 
visible  Church,  and  let  every  man  be  his  own  church, 
his  own  Priest,  his  own  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  and 
his  own  judge  as  to  what  the  Bible  is,"  the  cause  of 
all  this  science  and  modern  light .? 

The  real  cause  of  the  light  and  advance  of  modern 
times  is  not  a  theological  dogma  which  had  its  birth 
in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  But  it  is  the  human  mind, 
which  began  to  awaken  into  activity  far  back  in  the 
middle  ages,  four  hundred  years  before  the  Protestant 
dogma  was  thought  of.  As  that  human  mind  began  to 
arouse  out  of  its  sleep  in  the  Eighth  Century,  it  began 
to  be  prolific.  It  abandoned  the  rude  structures  of 
those  ages,  and  brought  out,  long  before  the  Conti- 
nental Reformation,  the  most  ornate  specimens  of 
architecture  the  world  ever  saw ;  in  the  Eleventh 
Century  it  invented  paper,  and  produced  printing 
before  Calvin  and  Luther  saw  the  light  ;  in  the 
Twelfth  Century  it  devised  banks  of  exchange  and 
discount,  and,  not   long  after,  invented  gunpowder, 


8         Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

conceived  the  idea  of  the  post-office,  discovered  and 
applied  the  principle  of  magnetism  in  the  mariner's 
compass,  and  thus  gave  such  a  start  to  commerce  and 
geographical  discovery  as  they  had  never  had  before ; 
it  invented  painting  in  oil-colors  before  Luther  was 
born  ;  in  the  Thirteenth  Century  it  introduced  as- 
tronomy and  geometry  into  Europe,  and,  not  long 
after,  brought  in  algebra  also,  and  fostered  all  three 
sciences  ;  it  produced  a  Dante,  a  Petrarch,  a  Chaucer, 
a  Boccaccio  and  a  Roger  Bacon,  long  before  Luther 
was  born  ;  five  hundred  years  before  Calvin  and 
Luther,  it  established  free  schools  for  the  country 
urchin  and  the  town  child  ;  centuries  before,  too,  it 
gathered  up  out  of  the  Gothic  and  Vandal  ruins  the 
precious  literary  treasures  of  Greece  and  Rome  ;  and 
founded  universities  at  Oxford,  Cambridge,  Bologna, 
Vienna,  Heidelberg,  Paris,  and  innumerable  other 
cities. 

No,  the  cause  of  the  light  and  advance  of  modern 
times  was  this  general  awakening  and  ever  increasing 
activity  of  mind  ;  an  activity  which  began  far  back  in 
the  tenth  century  or  earlier  ;  which  not  only  brought 
out  all  this  that  I  have  mentioned,  but  more  also ; 
which  has  been  bringing  out  new  blessings  to  man  ever 
since ;  which  has  rolled  up  and  out  a  thousand  things 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  9 

— most  of  them  good,  some  of  them  bad  ;  which, 
•  after  a  while,  rolled  up  the  Protestant  dogma  as  one  of 
its  many  and  varied  inventions  ;  and  which  is  rolling 
up  to-day  in  England  and  America  the  solemn  pre- 
sentment of  that  dogma  and  of  its  disastrous  fruits  at 
the  bar  of  this  enlightened  century. 

Now  there  are  those  who  would  have  one  think 
that  Protestantism  is  not  merely  one  of  the  hetero- 
geneous mixture  of  things,  which,  awakening  mind  in 
its  power,  but  also  in  its  fallibility,  turned  up,  six 
hundred  years  after  that  mind  had'begun  to  produce 
its  marvellous  fruits,  but  that  it  really  is,  somehow  or 
other,  the  cause  of  all  the  good  of  modern  times,  gun- 
powder, glass,  paper,  printing,  painting,  telescopes, 
astronomy,  algebra.  Magna  Charta,  and  everything 
else.  This  were  to  suppose  a  mother  producing  chil- 
dren before  she  was  born.  Protestantism  was  but 
one  of  the  effects  of  the  general  awakening  of  mind, 
not  its  cause ;  and  our  charge  is  that  it  happened  to  be 
one  of  the  bad  effects — not  in  that  it  struck  at  Roman 
error,  but  because  it  has  destroyed  Catholic  truth 
also.  ''  Where  Protestantism  prevails,  there  everything 
prevails  which  blesses  mankind ;  ergo^  Protestantism 
is  true."  This  is  the  argument.  Nay,  it  should  have 
been  said  that  where  active  mind  prevails,  there  thou- 


lo       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

sands  of  things  prevail  which  bless  mankind,  and  some 
things  that  are  curses.  Where  Protestantism  prevails, 
quotha  ?  Why,  one  might  as  well  say  where  Spiritual- 
ism prevails,  where  infidelity  prevails,  there  everything 
prevails  that  blesses  mankind :  ergo,  infidelity  is  true 

To  say  nothing  of  the  specifications  in  those  eight 
Murray  Hill  discourses,  what  were  two  of  the  main 
counts  in  the  Indictment  ?  First,  that  whereas,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  the  Protestant  religious 
dogmas  held  captive  to  themselves  great  thoughtful 
peoples  of  the  Germanic,  the  Swiss  and  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  man,  those  dogmas  had  failed  to  retain  the 
hold  they  once  had,  and  have,  to  an  overwhelming  ex- 
tent, lost,  at  last,  the  intellect  of  those  peoples :  and 
that,  while  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  Protest- 
antism held  the  masses  as  well  as  the  intellect  of  those 
peoples,  it  has  failed  to  hold  and  has  lost  those 
masses  as  well  as  the  intellect :  that  Protestantism, 
as  a  form  of  Christianity,  startds  to-day  breast-deep  in 
torrents  of  skepticism,  which  itself  hath  let  loose, 
which  are  deepening  around  it,  and  in  which  it  is 
drowning  ;  and  that  it  stands  there  to-day  aghast  and 
incompetent.  This  was  one  count  in  the  Indictment. 
Gentlemen,  you  have  seen  that  it  has  not  been  denied. 

A  second  count  was  that  the  fundamental  religious 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  i ' 

premises  of  Protestantism  were  essentially  anti-Chris* 
tian,  and  must  end,  by  inexorable  logic,  in  infidel  con- 
clusions ;  that  if  Calvin's  and  Luther's  and  Zwingli's 
premises  were  to  be  accepted,  then  Channing's  con- 
clusions were  nearer  right  by  logic  than  Cromwell's, 
and  Theodore  Parker's  nearer  right  than  Channing's, 
and  Frothingham's  and  Adler's  the  Tightest  of  all,  and 
quite  unanswerable  by  a  Protestant :  that  when  the 
Calvinists  burned  Servetus  at  the  stake,  they  burned 
Calvin*s  own  brain-child.  It  was  furthermore  claimed 
that  if  this  logical  aspect  of  Protestantism  was  correct, 
it  ought  to  have  shown  itself  finally  in  practical  his- 
torical results.  And  the  charge  was  made  that  what 
thus  ought  to  have  followed  logically,  had  actually 
followed  historically,  and  was  patent  to  all  in  the  com- 
paratively empty  churches  and  the  widespread  skep- 
ticism of  thoughtful  Germany,  America  and  Switzer- 
land.    This  was  another  count. 

I  reiterate :  with  all  that  was  said  ten  years  ago 
on  the  subject,  in  sermon,  newspaper  and  magazine, 
not  then  did  any  one,  not  at  any  time  since  has  any 
one  come  candidly  up  and  grappled  with  these  two 
main  counts  in  the  Indictment.  Can  they  be  met 
and  answered  ?  If  so,  why  have  several  editions  of 
the  volume  containing  the  Indictment  been  allowed 


12       Catholicity^  Frotestantistn  and  Romanism. 

to  be  read,  openly  or  secretly,  (for  the  volume  was 
forthwith  placed  on  the  Index  Expurgatorius  of  Prot 
estantism)  and  to  work  like  leaven  in  the  com- 
munity for  ten  years  ?  If  they  cannot  be  answered, 
it  is  not  strange  that  earnest-minded  citizens  should 
arise  and  ask,  What  is  Truth  ? 

To  resume ;  those  who  Say  to  the  world,  "  We 
have  the  eternal  truth,"  speak,  of  course,  with  author- 
ity ;  and  that  authority  must  be  one  of  two  things, 
either  baseless  or  founded  on  a  rock.  Protestantism 
cried,  "  We  have  the  Truth,"  and  nations  listened. 
What  strange  thing  do  you  at  once  behold  as  the 
nations  clustered  to  the  chair  of  Protestantism  ?  I 
will  tell  you.  The  tones  of  Protestantism  to  the 
world  were  the  tones  of  authority.  It  summoned  the 
people  to  itself  to  instruct  them.  And  yet  it  asserts 
its  own  fallibility.  Every  religion  which  does  not  at 
least  claim  for  itself  infallibility,  convicts  itself  by  that 
fact  that  it  is  liable  to  lead  men  astray  in  that  solemn 
concern  which,  fixed  but  once,  knows  no  cure.  Be- 
hold, then,  this  amazing  event — the  dying  nations 
flying  for  the  eternal  truth  to  a  system  that  proclaims 
its  liability  to  plunge  them  into  error.  For  such  a 
system  to  teach  in  the  name  of  a  God,  Whose  truth  is 
one,  fixed  and  eternal,  and  Whose  ways  alter  not,  nor 


Protestantism  and  Romanism,  13 

conflict  with  each  other,  is  the  consummation  of  the 
absurd.  No,  gentlemen,  as  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
only  human  being  who  dared  to  call  himself  God,  so 
Catholicity  is  the  only  Christian  body  that  dares  to 
call  itself  infallible ;  that  dares  to  begin  its  dis- 
courses, to  give  its  truth,  to  pronounce  its  judgments 
and  to  pardon  sin,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Sovereign 
Lord  God  hath  Himself  prepared  a  remedy  for 
Protestantism ;  and  that  remedy  is  the  anarchy  with 
which  it  rends  its  own  domain  in  a  sublime  suicide. 
And  so  it  lies  writhing  under  the  human,  and  dying 
under  the  Divine  criticism. 

Out  of  the  sixteenth  century,  then,  there  sounded 
the  cry,  "  We  have  the  Truth."  We  have  listened  to 
that  cry  and  have  seen  what  has  come  of  it.  It  was 
a  cry  of  mere  human  voices. 

On  the  i8th  of  July,  1870,  that  cry  sounded  again 
to  the  world.  It  arose,  not  from  the  plains  of  Saxony, 
not  from  the  lakes  of  Switzerland,  but  from  beneath 
the  shadow  of  the  Apennines.  This  time  it  was  in 
the  singular  number  :  "  I  alone  have  the  Truth."  All 
mankind  are  bid  to  note  that  an  august  Prelate,  when 
speaking  from  his  throne  as  doctor,  and  instructing 
the  world  in  faith  or  morals,  is  infallible.     But,  never- 


14       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

theless,  gentlemen,  you  have  heard  that  second  cry, 
and  have  turned  your  ear  away  from  the  Vatican. 
And  do  I  do  other  than  speak  your  thoughts  aloud 
when  I  give  the  reason  why  ? 

If  we  are  to  yield  our  own  ideas  and  accept,  with- 
out arguing,  what  is  told  us  as  the  truth,  we  must  first 
of  all  be  convinced  that  we  have  reached  the  fountain 
from  which  only  eternal  truth  flows.  In  short,  reason 
is  truly  called  by  Catholicity  "the  prelude  of  faith." 
Why,  then,  is  it  that,  since  the  i8th  of  July,  1870,  we 
are  all  to  believe  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  ?  Prior  to 
that  date  the  world  did  not  believe  it ;  voices  which 
spoke  from  high  places  in  even  the  Roman  Catholic 
hierarchy  itself  "had  declared  that  this  doctrine  of 
Papal  Infallibility  was  not  and  could  not  become  an 
article  of  Catholic  faith.  Not  only  had  the  once  pow- 
erful school  of  Gallican  divines  emphatically  repudia- 
ted it ;  not  only  had  Roman  Catholic  bishops  and 
clergy  in  Ireland,  not  very  many  years  back,  put  on 
formal  record  their  denial  of  it ;  not  only  had  such  an 
approved  manual  as  Keenan's  Controversial  Cate- 
chism declared  it  to  be  no  article  of  Catholic  belief, 
and  affirmed  that  no  Papal  decision  could  bind,  under 
pain  of  heresy,  unless  received  and  prescribed  by  the 
teaching  body  of  the  Church;  but  many  European 


Protestantism  a  fid  Romanism.  15 

bishops  had,  in  recent  times,  distinctly  denied  it  to  be 
a  part  of  Catholic  doctrine ;  and  American  bishops, 
just  before  the  Council  and  during  the  Council,  had 
expressed  their  conviction  that  it  was  out  of  harmony 
with  both  Scripture  and  tradition,  and  that  it  contra- 
dicted the  history  of  the  Church  as  a  teaching  power." 
And  yet  on  and  after  the  i8th  day  of  July,  1870, 
we  are  told  that  the  170,000,000  of  Roman  Catholics 
accepted  the  Papal  Infallibility.  Something  must, 
then,  have  happened  on  that  i8th  day  of  July  eight 
years  ago  as  a  reason  why  the  world  is  called  on  to 
believe  the  Pope  to  be  infallible.  What  happened  ? 
A  solemn  dogmatic  decree  was  promulgated.  That 
was  all.  Who  promulgated  it  ?  It  was  the  Pope  him- 
self, the  Patriarchal  Council  approving.  Ah,  then,  the 
decree  rests  upon  two  supports,  the  Pope  and  the 
Council.  Let  us  examine  each  support.  And  first 
the  Council.  The  Council,  as  one  of  the  supports  of 
the  decree,  was  either  fallible  or  infallible.  If  it  was 
fallible,  then,  for  all  we  know,  it  may  have  made  a 
mistake  when  it  announced  the  Papal  infallibility. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  infallible,  then,  by  as- 
serting something  else  and  not  itself  to  be  infallible,  it 
has  infallibly  pronounced  its  own  fallibility.  Indeed^ 
the  decree  itself  declares  the  Council  to  be  fallible  '- 


i6       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

for  it  says  :  "  The  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
are,  of  themselves,  and  not  in  virtue  of  the  consent  of  thi 
Churchy  irreformable."  If,  then,  the  Council,  by  its 
own  admission  and  by  the  Pope's  assertion,  is  liable 
to  error,  we  have  no  guarantee  whatever  that  it  spoke 
the  truth  when  it  taught  that  the  Pope  was  infallible. 
Thus,  either  way,  one  of  the  two  supports  on  which 
the  decree  rests — namely,  the  Patriarchal  Council — 
proves  utterly  rotten  and  worthless. 

Reason  is  the  prelude  of  faith.  Let  us  pass,  then 
to  the  other  support  on  which  the  decree  rests — 
namely,  the  assertion  of  the  Pope  himself.  Prior  to 
the  1 8th  day  of  July,  1870,  the  question  to  be  decided 
was  whether  or  not  the  Pope  was  infallible.  On  the 
i8th  day  of  July  the  Pope  himself  settles  the  doubtful 
question.  How  ?  Why,  by  simply  declaring  that  he 
is  infallible.  Is  this  logic?  "I  am  infallible."  Why? 
**  Because  I  am  infallible."  Behold  here,  gentlemen, 
born  in  the  womb  of  an  occasion  most  illustrious,  and 
issuing  from  a  gathering  which,  for  stateliness,  robed 
splendor  and  solemnity,  has  rarely  had  its  equal,  this 
flagrant  instance  of  the  fallacy  known  as  "  Begging  the 
very  question  at  issue  ;"  an  instance  which  is  perhaps 
the  sublimest  in  its  presumption  and  the  most  absurd 
in  its  simplicity  that  the  world  ever  stood  amazed  at 


Protestantism  and  Romanism,  17 

There  are  people  in  this  world  thoughtless  and 
discourteous  enough  to  say  that  the  feminine  mind 
has  some  peculiar  notions  of  its  own  touching  logic  j 
that  if  you  ask  why  a  certain  thing  is  so,  a  reason, 
entirely  satisfactory  at  any  rate  to  itself,  is  "  Because." 
One  is  reminded,  mutatis  mutandis,  of  what  the  able 
critic  of  The  Church  Times  said  of  Cardinal  Manning. 
One  "  does  not  know  whether  such  ungallant  sugges- 
tion be  well  founded  or  not  in  the  case  of  woman  j 
probably  not.  But  it  applies  with  singular  force  "  to 
the  promulgator  of  the  above  decree. 

What  connection  there  may  be  between  the  angry 
portents  of  heaven  and  the  deeds  of  man  in  the  moral 
and  intellectual  realms,  who  shall  say?  That  the 
former  are  rolled  out  of  the  physical  realm  coinci- 
dently  with  the  occurrence  of  the  latter  in  the  moral 
realm  by  that  God,  Who  holdeth  and  guideth  both 
realms  as  one  by  His  one  will  and  power,  may  be  too 
much  for  science  to  fathom,  but  not  too  much  for  faith 
to  receive.  At  any  rate  we  know  what  God  hath 
said  :  *'  And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun  and  in  the 
moon  and  in  the  stars  ;  ...  for  the  powers  of  heaven 
shall  be  shaken."  At  any  rate  you  have  seen  Mel- 
chior,  Gasper  and  Balthasar  guided  to  the  spot  where 
the  young  Child  lay.     And,  at  any  rate,  we  know  that 


1 8       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

darkness  came  at  noon-day,  while  the  Jews  were  ac 
complishing  their  purpose.  When  on  the  i8th  day 
of  July,  1870,  the  aged  man,  crowned  with  the  tiara, 
arose  with  great  form  and  pomp  from  his  throne  in 
the  Vatican  Basilica,  and  made  the  awful  declaration 
to  the  universe,  '*  I  alone  have  the  Truth,"  above  the 
dome  of  that  Basilica  without,  there  had  already  gath- 
ered out  of  the  reservoirs  of  the  air  a  storm,  which 
those  who  saw  it  describe  as  almost  unequaled  in 
blackness  and  turmoil  and  terror.  And  as  the  poor, 
feeble  human  voice  lifted  itself  from  earth,  it  spoke 
into  the  deepest  gloom,  and  was  instantly  answered 
from  heaven  by  angry  flashes  of  the  most  blinding  light- 
ning and  peal  on  peal  of  sudden  thunder,  as  though  in 
a  Divine  derision  to  drown  the  Pontiffs  awful  words. 

From  the  University  of  Wittenberg  and  from  the 
lake-shores  of  Geneva  and  Zurich  we  heard  the  cry, 
'*We  have  the  Truth."  But  it  was  only  the  cry  of 
human  voices,  claiming  no  infallibility.  Again  from 
the  banks  of  the  Tiber  it  arose,  "I  have  the  Truth." 
But  it  was  again  the  sound  of  a  poor  human  voice 
only ;  a  voice  claiming  indeed  infallibility,  but  the 
claim  based  on  supports  both  of  which  crumble  tc 
dust  at  the  touch.  And  so  you  have  turned  your  eai 
away  from  the  Vatican. 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  19 

But  a  question  is  not  only  "  an  hunger,"  it  is  also 
*  a  hope."  For  who  would  ask  for  what  he  despairs 
of  ever  having  ?  And  so  you  have  come  up  here  with 
the  great  question  on  your  lips.  Have  you  seriously 
asked  yourselves  why  you  have  come  up  here  ?  Is  it 
— since  you  cannot  rely  upon  having  the  truth  from 
Rome,  from  Geneva,  from  Wittenberg — in  order  to  sit 
at  the  feet  of  another  mere  man,  and  be  instructed  in 
new  dogmas  of  grace,  justification  and  salvation,  which 
he,  too,  has  excogitated  and  deems  correct  ?  No, 
gentlemen,  you  have  not  placed  me  in  so  absurd  an 
attitude.  You  announce  that  you  have  already  had 
enough  of  the  mere  fallible  human  voice  crying  to  you, 
"  Put  your  trust  in  me." 

There  is  a  second  explanation,  then,  of  your  pres- 
ence here  ;  and  does  this  account  for  it  ?  Having, 
namely,  in  your  minds  the  various  statements  touching 
grace,  justification,  the  atonement  and  salvation,  which 
men  have  propounded  as  the  Truth,  do  you  come  here 
for  still  another  theory,  in  articled,  dogmatic  statement, 
in  order  that  you  may  sit  as  judges,  weighing  the  new 
with  the  old,  and  decide  which  is  the  most  Biblical 
and  probable,  or  select  parts  from  all  and  form  another 
theory  to  suit  yourselves  and  perhaps  to  announce  to 
the  world  ?     But  this  would  be  merely  using  me  for 


20       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

new  material,  and  then  falling  back  on  yourselves  foi*^ 
the  Truth  ;  while  there  is  that  within  you  which,  in  its 
hunger,  cries,  I  have  not  the  Truth  to  give,  nor  power 
to  summon  it  forth,  nor  reagents  to  test  it.  No,  gen- 
tlemen, in  coming  up  here,  as  you  have  not  placed  me 
in  a  mortifying  position,  neither  have  you  placed  your- 
selves in  so  absurd  an  attitude. 

There  is  only  one  more  explanation.  You  will 
neither  trust  me  nor  yourselves.  Ah,  then,  gentlemen, 
you  seek  no  less  than  the  Divine  voice  to  give  you  the 
Truth.  But  do  you  expect  to  hear  the  Divine  voice 
speaking  the  Truth  to  you  through  me  to-night  ?  No. 
For  we  accept  the  'Divine  voice  without  arguing  ;  and 
you  have  come  here  to  consider,  to  weigh,  to  reason. 
To  consider  what  ?  Reason  is  the  prelude  of  faith ; 
and  you  have  come  up  here  to  reason  within  yourselves 
and  to  consider  whether  there  be  anywhere  on  earth 
any  channel  of  the  Divine  voice,  any  audible  source 
of  infallible  Truth,  and  if  so,  where  you  are  to  find  it. 
For  such  and  such  only  will  neither  deceive  nor  fail 
you  ;  with  such  and  such  only  will  you  be  satisfied  ; 
before  the  presence  of  such  and  such  only  will  you  be 
at  rest.  Then,  having  accepted,  without  arguing,  the 
Truth  from  a  source  that  will  not  deceive  us,  we  may 
afterward  reverently  examine  and  admire   its  pearls 


Protestantism  and  Rofnanism.  a  I 

and  rubies,  and  compare  them  with  the  diamonds  of 
glass  and  the  emeralds  of  paste. 

If  there  be  on  earth  the  audible  Divine  voice, 
where  shall  we  go  to  find  and  listen  to  it  ?  This  is 
the  question  of  to-night.  It  is  very  difficult  to  disen- 
gage one's  self  from  the  influences  of  education  and 
from  long  habits  of  thought.  Ideas  and  prejudices 
which  we  have  gained  in  our  childhood,  youth  and 
early  manhood  from  our  parents,  from  the  Bible,  from 
the  atmosphere  of  Christianity  around  us,  root  them- 
selves into  us  until  they  become  almost  a  part  of  the 
very  fabric  of  our  minds.  And  yet  I  am  going  to  ask 
you  to  join  with  me  in  the  difficult  task  of  utterly  dis- 
engaging yourselves  for  a  brief  while  from  all  impres- 
sions of  every  name  and  nature  touching  even  God, 
which  you  have  had  all  your  lives,  and  touching  the 
future  life,  revelation,  Christ  or  salvation.  They  may 
all  return  upon  you  when  I  have  gotten  through  ;  but 
for  the  nonce  let  us  put  them  all  away  in  order  that 
we  may  come  with  virgin  minds  to  a  certain  pathway 
where  I  wish  to  take  you.  In  that  one  pathway  at  least 
we  wish  no  disturbing  elements,  no  shadowy  forms  of 
previous  notions  and  prejudices  beckoning  us  hither 
and  yon,  as  we  cautiously  move  on.  Then  we  shall  be 
all  alike  as  we  enter.     It  is  a  pathway  of  very  simple 


I  2       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Jeasoning  ;  and  I  beg  each  one  of  you  to  examine 
Carefully  every  single  link  in  the  chain  from  first  to  last. 

Why  is  it  necessary  for  me  to  ask  you  away  from 
all  your  previous  impressions  into  this  pathway  at  all  ? 
It  is  because  we  are,  with  our  different  educations  and 
religious  influences,  all  in  confusion  ;  and  I  desire 
that  we  go  back  and  start  even,  and  all  over  again, 
without  a  Bible,  without  a  Christ,  without  a  Church, 
without  Sacraments,  without  any  religious  notions — 
and  see  where  we  shall  come  out. 

Let  me  say,  in  the  first  place,  then,  that  as  we 
stand  surrounded  by  the  innumerable  sects  and  forms 
of  Christianity,  the  plain  man  is  utterly  bewildered 
with  the  conflicting  voices.  He  thinks  there  are  a 
thousand  and  one  questions  which  he  must  carefully 
and  painfully  settle  if  he  would  get  out  of  the  maze 
and  reach  the  truth.  No,  gentlemen,  this  is  a  mis- 
take. Numerous  as  the  forms  of  Christianity  are,  and 
certainly  their  name  is  legion,  they  fall  as  inevitably 
and  infallibly  apart  into  classes,  orders,  genera  and 
species,  as  do  the  innumerable  flowers  of  the  vege- 
table kingdom.  Settle  three  questions  and  your 
trouble  is  gone.  The  first  two  are  not  difficult  or 
complex  questions  either.  And  it  is  up  to  them  that 
I  would  bring  you  face  to  face  to-night. 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  23 

Now  all  chains  of  reasoning  must  hang  upon  staples. 
It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  chain  of  reasoning 
extending  back  infinitely  into  the  past  and  hanging 
nowhere.  In  the  mathematics,  reasoning  starts  from 
axioms.  I  start  then  with  certain  statements  which  I 
ask  you  to  admit  without  proof.  I  ask  you  to  admit : 
(i)  That  there  is  a  God  ;  (2)  That  that  God  is  a  perfect 
God  of  love ;  (3)  That  we  each  of  us  exist ;  and  (4) 
That  our  senses  give  us  tolerably  accurate  intelligence 
of  that  by  which  we  are  surrounded.  Bear  in  mind, 
gentlemen,  that  we  all  admit  that  God  is  a  perfect 
God  of  love  ;  for  that  is  of  importance.  Indeed, 
Voltaire  himself  once  said,  that  even  if  there  were  no 
God,  it  would  be  necessary  to  invent  one.  If  you 
do  not  admit  this,  then  I  have  nothing  further  to  say. 
If  you  do  admit  it,  then  I  go  on ;  and  let  us  see  where 
we  shall  come  out.  I  do  not  ask  any  of  you  to  take  a 
single  step  where  you  cannot  follow ;  but  having 
taken  any  step,  I  simply  ask  you,  in  this  course  of 
Conferences,  not  to  go  back. 

We  all  start  even,  and  therefore  I  will  take  some 
one  of  us,  not  as  a  guide,  but  as  a  specimen  for  each 
of  the  rest ;  and  let  that  one  be  myself. 

I  exist,  then.  And,  looking  round  about  me,  I 
find  myself  in  a  vast  temple.     Above  me  is  its  mighty 


«4       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

dome  ;  spread  out  beneath  me  is  its  vast  floor.  It  is 
the  Temple  of  Nature.  How  did  I  get  here  ?  (Re- 
member, we  have  wiped  out  all  our  previous  religious 
impressions.)  How  did  I  get  here?  I  know  not. 
I  only  know  that  I  entered  it  through  the  gateway  of 
birth,  and  that  I  shall  go  out  of  it  through  the  gate- 
way of  death.  Within  this  Temple  of  Nature  I  find 
innumerable  objects,  and  I  find  physical,  mental  and 
moral  laws  operating.  I  can  observe  and  group  its 
facts,  form  theories,  test  my  theories  by  experiment, 
ascertain  its  laws,  and  come  to  fixed  and  certain 
conclusions,  in  which  I  can  rest  and  on  which  I  can 
act.  For  I  have  senses  which  place  me  in  connec- 
tion with  all  around  me,  and  enable  me  to  be.  intelligent 
concerning  the  abode  within  which  I  am  enclosed. 
I  know  that  I  shall  exist  here  but  a  few  years,  and 
then  I  shall  go  out  of  this  temple  through  the  door- 
way of  death.  Whither  shall  I  go?  I  cannot  see 
beyond,  and  I  do  not  know.  I  can  follow  a  fellow- 
man  up  to  death ;  but  the  moment  he  has  passed 
away  my  faintest  whisper,  my  loudest  cry  does  not 
reach  him.  He  is  gone  from  me  as  completely  as 
'  though  he  had  been  suddenly  annihilated.  I  stand 
and  rap  at  the  door  of  death  ;  what  is  there  beyond  ? 
I  listen  j    there  is  no  reply.      Is  there  an  existence 


Frotestantism  and  Roviaiiism.  25 

Deyond  and  outside  of  this  Temple  of  Nature?  If 
so,  will  my  existence  be  eternal  or  not  ?  Are  there 
rocks  and  dangers  there  for  me  to  escape?  What 
are  the  beings  that  live  in  the  realm  of  super-nature  ? 
Moreover  are  there  invisible  facts  and  phenomena  and 
laws  that  prevail  here  in  the  supernatural?  I  know 
not.  How  then  am  I  to  know  the  Truth  with  regard 
to  the  latter  that  I  may  so  shape  my  course  here  as 
to  enter  upon  a  successful  existence  there?  I  know 
not.  I  am  completely  cut  off  from  them  by  the  walls 
of  nature.  I  cannot  see  them  through  those  walls  ;  I 
cannot  hear  their  sound  and  movement.  If  I  form 
theories  about  them,  I  cannot  bring  those  theories  to 
the  test  of  experiment ;  and  so  I  am  totally  cut  off 
from  ascertaining  whether  my  theories  are  true  or  not. 
How  then  am  I  to  act  here  with  certainty  ?  Standing 
at  the  door  of  death,  I  can,  indeed,  conjecture  concern- 
ing those  facts,  phenomena,  laws  and  requirements  in 
which  I  may  be  living  now  and  into  which  I  am  to 
plunge;  I  can  conjecture  about  all  the  unseen  supernat- 
ural that  plays  here  in  this  Temple  of  Nature  ;  about 
the  law  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justification,  and 
the  means  of  salvation.  And  so,  too,  can  another 
man  conjecture.  And  his  mere  guess,  though  it  con- 
tradict mine  in  every  particular,  is  as  good  as  mine  j 


26        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

for  both  our  guesses  are  mere  guesses,  and  are  reallj 
worth,  so  far  as  certainty  is  concerned,  just  nothing  at 
all.  Why  sow  seed  in  cloud-land  ?  Why  waste  time  ? 
Let  me  turn  back,  then,  from  the  door  of  the  super- 
natural here  and  hereafter  at  which  I  am  standing  to 
this  Temple  of  Nature,  where  there  is  something  posi- 
tive ;  where,  if  I  form  a  natural  theory,  I  can  test  it 
by  natural  fact  and  come  to  some  settled  and  positive 
conclusion.  As  for  supernatural  fact  and  law  and 
process,  we,  shut  up  as  we  are  in  this  Temple  of  Na- 
ture, are  all  by  nature  drowning  in  an  ocean  of  mere 
fruitless  conjecture  and  guesswork. 

And  yet,  if  I  am  to  live  eternally  in  the  realms 
of  the  supernatural  and  among  its  phenomena  and 
laws,  if  its  laws  play  here  unknown  to  and  unseen 
by  me,  and  have  a  bearing  upon  me,  then,  that  I 
should  have  no  guesswork,  that  I  should  be  able 
to  bring  the  order  of  my  ideas  within  into  harmony 
with  the  order  of  those  supernatural  facts,  phe- 
nomena and  laws,  that  I  should  have  no  less  than  the 
positive  and  infallible  truth  concerning  them,  this,  to 
me,  is  of  the  vastest  importance.  It  were  the  most 
exquisite  cruelty  to  shut  me  in  here  and  leave  me 
drowning  in  an  ocean  of  mere  conjecture  about 
eternity  and  its  laws  and  requirements.     My  danger 


Protestantism  and  Romamsm.  27 

of  unending  disaster  is  enormous ;  for  truth  is  one, 
like  the  centre  of  a  circle,  while  the  possibility  of  va- 
riation from  it  and  of  error,  is  infinite  like  the  radii 
that  point  in  every  direction.  This,  then,  is  my  situa- 
tion by  nature. 

Now,  just  here,  gentlemen,  I  call  you  to  take  the 
first  step  along  the  pathway  with  me.  It  is  this  :  God 
is  love  j  I  have  admitted  that.  Therefore  there  is  no 
escape  from  the  logical  conclusion  that  He  cannot 
leave  me  in  my  miserable  plight  of  fruitless  guesswork. 
He  cannot  leave  me  in  my  awful  position  of  drowning 
in  an  ocean  of  mere  conjecture  and  incertitude  about 
topics,  concerning  which  it  is  of  the  vastest  importance 
that  I  should  have  knowledge  no  less  than  exactly 
true  ;  for  anything  short  of  infallibility  itself  in  the 
matter  leaves  me  still  in  uncertainty  and  danger.  I 
can  run  no  risk  whatever  where  the  stake  is  so  fearful, 
because  eternal.  God  is  love ;  and  the  first  conclu- 
sion is,  He  must  and  has  done  something  to  help  me. 
And,  furthermore,  it  must  be  that  in  helping  me  He 
will  do  so  effectually,  /.  ^.,  He  will  make  no  mistake. 
He  is  not  going  to  attempt  to  help  me,  and  cheat  me 
by  leaving  me  worse  off  than  before.  For  He  is 
perfect  and  knows  what  the  real  help  will  be,  and  all- 
powerful  and  able  therefore  to  effect  it,  or  He  is  not 


28        CainoCicity,  Piotestaniism  and  Roma?nsm. 

God  at  all.  Being  God,  then,  and  infinite  Love,  He 
must,  can  and  has  helped  me,  it  may  not  be  to  al! 
truth,  but  to  such  truth  at  any  rate  as  is  essential  to 
my  case,  and  has  somehow  helped  me  effectually  to 
this  truth. 

Is  there  any  flaw  in  this  first  link  "i  I  cannot  see 
any  ;  and  I  seem  to  hear  you  say,  "  No  ;  go  on. " 

Very  well^the  next  point  is  kow  has  He  helped 
me  ?  Gentlemen,  there  are  only  three  ways  possible 
and  only  three  ways  thinkable.  One  is  so  to  place 
me  that  I  can  help  myself  in  this  matter  of  supernatu 
ral  truth ;  the  second  is  to  send  some  one  else  to 
help  me  ;  the  third  is  to  help  me  Himself.  If  He  has 
not  adopted  the  first,  then  He  must  have  chosen  one 
of  the  other  two.  If  He  has  not  chosen  the  second, 
then  there  is  no  escape  for  me ;  for  He  must  have 
adopted  the  third. 

First :  He  could  take  me  temporarily  out  of  this 
Temple  of  Nature,  give  me  such  new  senses  as  would 
put  me  en  rapport  with  the  invisible  facts  and  phenom- 
ena of  grace  and  the  supernatural,  leave  me  to  ascer- 
tain of  myself  their  laws  just  as  I  ascertain  here  the 
laws  of  nature ;  and  then,  when  I  am  equipped  with 
tlie  knowledge  of  the  truth,  put  me  back  into  this 
Temple  and  leave  me  here  to  live  aright  and  to  die 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  29 

aright.  But  I  know  He  has  not  done  this.  Therefore 
He  must  have  adopted  one  of  the  two  other  only 
thinkable  ways.  If,  then,  He  has  not  enabled  me  to 
help  myself,  He  must,  secondly,  have  sent  some  one 
else  to  help  me  ;  or,  thirdly,  He  must  have  helped 
me  by  breaking  through  the  dome  of  N  ature,  coming 
in  to  me  Himself,  and  so  placing  Himself  en  rapport 
with  me  as  to  communicate  with  me  intelligibly  to 
myself. 

Here,  then,  our  pathway  forks.  And  here,  at  this 
point,  you  are  face  to  face  with  your  first  great  ques- 
tion. How  will  you  decide  it  ?  Which  way  will  you 
take  as  you  go  on  t  To  the  left  or  straight  ahead  ? 
If  you  decide  that  H^  sent  some  one  else,  you  are  a 
Unitarian.  If  you  decide  that  He  came  Himself,  you 
are  a  Trinitarian. 

Indeed,  there  are  independent  reasons  why  God 
must  be  Triune.  For  the  Divine  Being  must  neces- 
sarily have  the  highest  object  of  blissful  contempla- 
tion, the  highest  means  of  happiness,  or  He  would 
not  be  supremely  happy.  But  God  is  Himself  the 
highest  of  Beings.  All  creation  is,  of  course,  inferior 
to  Him,  and  cannot  therefore  in  itself  furnish  Him 
with  siich  highest  and  most  blissful  contemplation. 
Such  highest  object  of  blissful  contenr.plation  must 


3©        Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

therefore  be  found,  no  otherwhere  than  in  the  arche 
typal  structure  Itself  of  God.  Now  an  object  of  con- 
templation must  be  different  from,  it  must  be,  in  some 
sense,  external  to  that  which  contemplates  it.  But 
how  can  there  be  in  the  i?iternal  structure  of  God  an 
external  object  of  contemplation  ?  Only  if  God  has 
existed  from  all  past  eternity  in  a  Tri-unity,  whereby 
the  Father  can  behold  His  own  blissful  perfections  as 
existing  in  and  reflected  from  the  Son,  Who  is  Person- 
ally, though  not  in  Substance,  external  to  Himself; 
and  the  Son,  those  same  objects  of  blissful  contempla- 
tion reflected  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
can  gaze  upon  His  own  perfections  as  they  reside  in 
the  Father.  The  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  One  Sub- 
stance of  God  is  what  alone  enables  the  Divine  Be- 
ing to  find  within  Himself  a  divine  Sabbath  of  active 
self-contemplation  in  supremest  bliss  from  all  past 
eternity;  and  this,  because  that  which  causes  the 
consummation  of  bliss,  viz.  :  the  infinite  perfection 
of  love,  joy  and  peace,  is  found  within  God,  and  not 
within  creation,  and  mutually  reflected  within  Him 
from  Eternal  Person  to  Eternal  Person. 

There  are  those  who  assert  that  it  is  impossible 
for  a  human  mind  C}-  any  strength  to  believe  in  the 
Tri-unity  of  God.   But  Plato,  who  possessed  one  of  the 


Protestantism  and  Romanism,  31 

profoundest,  if  not  the  profoundest  uninspired  mind 
that  ever  existed,  did  not  think  thus.  He  declaieU 
that  the  more  deeply  one  thought  of  the  Divine  Being 
the  more  one  found  it  impossible  to  conceive  of  Him 
as  a  strict  Unit.  It  were  certainly  modest  in  us  all 
to  think  just  as  deeply  as  did  Plato,  before  we  assert 
that  the  Tri-unity  of  God  is  something  that  a  though  1-=^ 
ful  man  cannot  hold. 

Plato  argues  that,  as  creation  has  not  had  an 
eternal  existence  in  the  past,  as  there  must,  therefore, 
have  been  a  time  when  God  alone  existed,  it  is  im- 
possible for  the  human  mind,  in  contemplating  the 
Divine  Being  as  existing  prior  to  and  without  any 
creation,  to  conceive  of  Him  as  a  strict  Unit.  For 
if  He  had  been  a  simple  Unit,  there  having  been,  be- 
fore creation,  nothing  external  to  such  unit  to  awaken 
its  attention  as  an  object  of  contemplation,  such  unit 
could  never  have  aroused  out  of  its  inactivity  and 
non-self- consciousness  to  have  produced  creation  at 
all.  Therefore  there  must  have  been  from  all  past 
eternity  within  God's  Archetypal  Structure  Itself,  in 
some  way,  exterior  objects  of  Divine  Contemplation  \ 
and  the  human  mind  is  forced  to  admit  the  necessity 
of  a  species  of  Plurality  within  the  Unity  of  God. 

It  is  most  remarkable,  that  Plato  asserts  that  this 


32        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Plurality  must  be  a  I'riplicity.  The  names  which  he 
gives  to  the  three  Principles  are  singularly  in  harmony 
with  those  which  were  subsequently  fully  revealed  in 
Holy  Scripture.  To  the  first  of  his  conceptions  he 
applies  the  name  'AyaTr??,  which  means  Love ;  to  the 
second  he  gives  the  name  Novf,  which  means  Intelli- 
gence ;  and  to  the  third  the  title  of  life,  "ivxh. 

However,  I  am  not  here  addressing  Unitarians. 
I  am  addressing  those  whose  God  is  not  the  god 
of  Mohammed.  It  was  long  since  decided,  and  ad- 
mirably set  forth  by  the  great  French  Dominican, 
that  there  are  only  three  possible  religions,  viz.:  one, 
whose  statement  is,  "  Man  is  God  ;"  a  second,  whose 
statement  is,  "God  is  God;"  and  a  third,  whose 
statement  is,  "God  is  Man."  The  first  is  the  religion 
of  Polytheism  ;  the  second  is  the  religion  of  Moham- 
medanism ;  the  third  is  Christianity.  Christianity 
declares  that  God  has  become  Man,  and  so  communi- 
cates with  us  directly.  Mohammedanism  says,  this 
is  impossible  ;  God  remains  and  is  only  God,  and  His 
communication  with  man  is  only  through  a  prophet — 
through  a  second  cause,  through  a  creature.  This 
also  is  the  fundamental  statement  of  Unitarianism  ; 
therefore  Unitarianism  is  a  European  variety  of  the 
second  form  of  religion,  or  Mohammedanism,  agree 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  33 

ingwith  it  in  its  mighty  fundamental  statement,  "  God 
is  God,"  but  simply  varying  that  mighty  statement 
into  "Allah  il  Allah,  and  Christ  is  His  prophet." 
But  I  am  addressing,  I  say,  those  whose  God  is  the 
God  of  St.  John,  of  St.  Augustine,  of  Luther,  of  Cran- 
mer  and  of  Wesley.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  for 
me  to  enter  fully  into  the  question  whether,  in  help- 
ing us,  God  sent  some  one  else.  It  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that  if  He  sent  some  one  else,  then  He  has 
made  the  mistake  of  attempting  to  help  us  out  of  our 
conjectures,  and  failing  to  do  so.  For  it  is  a  patent 
fact  that  the  Unitarians,  acting  on  this  supposition, 
are  left  conjecturing  as  to  what  is  Truth  ?  and  what  is 
God?  and  what  are  His  ways?  and  what  is  Christ?  as 
badly  as  ever.  Semi  Arians  against  the  Arians,  Arians 
against  the  Socinians,  Channing  against  Parker,  Bel- 
lows against  Frothingham.  As,  therefore,  on  the  theory 
that  some  one  else  was  sent,  we  are  plunged  into  the 
absurdity  of  supposing  that  an  all-powerful  and  all- 
perfect  God  of  Love  tried  and  failed  to  help  us,  that  a 
perfect  God  is,  therefore,  imperfect,  and  a  loving  God 
either  incompetent  or  unloving,  we  are  forced  to  reject 
the  second  of  the  three  ways  of  helping  us. 

There  is  but  one  more  thinkable  way.     He  must, 
then,  have  adopted  that.     There  is  no  escape  for  us ; 
0* 


34        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

we  must  move  straight  along  our  path  with  the  settled 
and  permanent  conclusion  that  God  broke  through 
the  dome  of  Nature  and  came  in  among  us  Himself. 

I  am  not  only  driven  helplessly  to  this  conclusion, 
gentlemen,  by  logic,  by  the  absolute  necessities  of  my 
case,  and  by  the  attributes  of  God,  but  I  am  confirmed 
in  it,  moreover,  by  the  fact  that  here  before  me,  in 
this  very  Temple  of  Nature,  there  is  an  extraordinary 
Book,  which,  whatever  I  may  say  of  it,  I  know  as  a 
historic  fact,  foretold,  long  before  the  extraordinary 
Being  came  Whom  they  call  the  God-man,  that,  sooner 
or  later,  no  less  than  God  should  come,  as  the  desire 
of  all  nations,  and  be  "  with  us,"  that  He  should  be 
born  of  a  virgin,  and  that  His  name  should  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  Mighty  God,  The  Ever- 
lasting Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace. 

It  must  be  God,  too,  for  I  must  have  nothing  less 
than  certainty  as  to  supernatural  truth  and  the  laws 
of  His  grace.  And  certainty  demands  infallibility. 
All  creatures,  even  the  highest,  are  finite  ;  they  fall 
short  of  omniscience  itself.  For  if  the  being  be  less 
than  omniscient  he  may  innocently  lead  me  astray 
through  ignorance.  I  am  driven  helplessly  to  admit, 
then,  that  God  has  come  to  help  us. 

I  pass  on,  then  ;  but,  lo,  I  come  suddenly  to  a  spot 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  35 

where  the  path  forks  again.  We  must  pause  again. 
Gentlemen,  you  are  brought  here  face  to  face  with 
your  second  great  question.  For  God,  having  once 
come  in  a  visible  form,  having  so  come  that  He  can 
be  touched  by  us,  and  can  speak  to  us  audibly  through 
an  organic  form  of  human  matter,  one  of  two  things 
must  have  happened  subsequently.  There  are  only 
two  things  possible  to  have  happened  ;  only  two  things 
thinkable.  They  are  these,  namely :  He  must  either 
have  so  gone  away  again  as  not  afterward  to  be  visi- 
ble, tangible  and  audible  through  a  one  organic  form 
of  humanity  on  earth,  or  He  must  have  remained  with 
us,  visible,  tangible  and  audible  through  a  one  organic 
form  of  humanity  on  earth.  There  is  no  tertium  quid. 
There  is  your  second  great  question.  If  you  decide 
for  the  first  alternative,  then  you  are  a  Protestant.  If 
you  decide  for  the  second,  that  God  has  still  remained, 
and  will  to  the  end  of  time  remain,  in  a  one,  undying, 
ever-fresh,  amazing,  organic,  visible,  audible,  tangible 
and  recognizable  body  of  human  matter,  known  as  the 
Body  Mystical  of  God  on  earth,  out  into  which  His 
Body  Natural  has  without  break  or  fissure  expanded, 
then  you  are  a  Catholic.  Whether  you  are  of  the 
Anglican,  Roman  or  Greek  part  is  a  subsequent  ques- 
tion ;  but  you  are  a  Catholic. 


36        Catholicity,  Frotesta?itism  afid  Romanism. 

What  is  the  relationship,  then,  between  Protest 
antisra  and  Catholicity  ?  As  we  stand  berewhere  the 
path  forks  a  second  time,  shall  we  take  off  to  the  left 
into  theProtestant  by-path,  or  shall  we  go  straight 
en?    Let  us  see. 

"  Oh,  yes,"  says  Protestantism ;  "  God  came  1,800 
years  ago  to  place  Himself  physically  en  rapport  with 
us  ;  He  stayed  thirty-three  years  ;  and  then  He  went 
away,  and  is  no  longer  on  earthy  visible  and  tangible 
in  any  one  organic  speaking  body  of  human  matter. 
But  when  He  thus  went  away  He  left  behind  Him,  for 
our  certamty  in  matters  of  doctrinal  truth,  grace  and 
salvation,  a  Book.  Behold  this,  our  sublime  Bible. 
It  is  with  this  that  we  are  en  rapport  since  He  left ; 
and  then  He  sends  His  influence  from  heaven,  which 
in  some  recondite,  spiritual  and  transcendental  sense, 
helps  each  of  us  to  find  the  truth  as  we  apply  ourselves 
to  this.  His  precious  legacy." 

Certainly,  I  reply,  this  is  an  intelligible  theory, 
and  commands  my  respect.  But  I  am  to  decide  which 
way  I  am  to  go.  Permit  me  to  ask  of  you,  then,  What 
is  the  supernatural  truth  touching  punishment  here- 
after t  "  Some  of  us  who  accept  the  '  Bible  only,' 
claim  that  it  is  eternal,  and  others  hold  that  it  is  not." 
Touching  the  necessity  of  Baptism  and  the  Sacraments 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  37 

generally  ?  "  Some  of  us  hold  that  they  are  necessary, 
and  others  that  they  are  quite  unnecessary."  Touch- 
ing the  number  of  the  Sacraments  ?  *  Well,  some  of 
us  claim  that  they  are  ordinances  only,  and  not  Sac- 
raments at  all ;  so  that  some  claim  that  out  of  the 
seven  there  are  only  two,  and  others  that  there  are 
none  at  all."  Touching  the  atoning  Cross  ?  "  Some 
of  us  claim  that  Its  effect  was  universal  ;  others  that 
Its  effect  was  particular  only."  But,  touching  Its 
necessity  for  salvation  at  all  ?  '*  Well,  some  of  us  that 
accept  the  '  Bible  only '  claim  that  It  is  necessary,  and 
others  that  It  is  not."  Touching  the  necessity  of  a 
good  life  ?  "  Well,  there  are  some  that  claim  it  to  be 
necessary  to  have  wrought  at  least  one  hour,  from  the 
eleventh  to  the  twelfth,  for  the  penny  of  eternal  life  ; 
others  that  the  work  of  salvation  is  all  completed  if 
one,  as  the  clock  of  life  is  striking  twelve,  utters  the 
all-powerful  and  magical  sentence  '  I  apprehend  the 
Cross.' "  Touching  hereafter  ?  "  Some  claim  that 
there  is  only  an  eternal  Heaven  and  an  eternal  Hell  ; 
others  that  besides  these  there  is  an  intermediate  tern 
poral  state  of  waiting ;  and  still  others,  that  there  is 
no  Hell  at  all."  Touching  Satan  ?  "  Some  of  us  think 
there  is  such  a  being,  others  deny  it."  Touching  God 
Himself  ?     "  Well,  we  are  not  agreed  j  some  of  us  that 


38       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

accept  the  *  Bible  only  '  hold  that  God  is  a  Trinity  ; 
others,  that  The  Father  alone  is  God,' "  and  so  on  to 
the  end  of  the  chapter. 

But  if  God  came  and  thus  went  away  and  left  only 
a  Book  and  a  vague  influence,  I  do  not  see,  O  Prot- 
estantism, that  we  are  very  much  helped.  I  do  not 
see  that  we  are  not  all  still  drowning  in  an  ocean  of 
mere  conjecture  as  to  what  that  Book  says.  I  do  not 
see  that  we  are  not  all  left  still  conjecturing  touching 
the  mightiest  and  most  vastly  important  facts,  phe- 
nomena and  laws  of  grace  and  salvation ; — God,  who 
He  is  ;  man,  and  what  his  state  is ;  hereafter  ;  here, 
and  the  supernatural  generally.  Nay,  your  Book, 
with  which  alone  you  say  you  have  been  left,  hath 
only  stimulated  conjecture  concerning  these  things  a 
thousand-fold.  Before,  we  knew  it  was  all  guesswork  \ 
now  you  are  all  busy  at  guesswork,  and  do  not  realize 
it.  This  is  the  worst  of  all.  For  before,  we  faced 
conjecture,  and  knew  what  we  faced — it  was  conjee, 
ture,  unreliable,  unverifiable.  Now  you  face  mere  con 
jecture,  and  are  all  and  severally  cheating  your 
selves  into  thinking,  each  his  own  is  not  conjecture 
at   all. 

By  your  theor)',  O  Protestantism,  a  loving  God 
flew  to  a  world  that  was  drowning  in  an  ocean  of  con- 


I'rotestantism  and  Romanism.  39 

jecture,  gave  it  a  great  hope  of  rescue,  and  then  fled, 
leaving  that  behind  Him  which  only  hurled  them  back 
into  a  vaster,  blacker  and  more  tempestuous  ocean  of 
conjecture  than  ever.  By  your  theory,  O  Protestant- 
ism, a  loving  God  has  done  Satan's  work !  By  your 
theory  an  omnipotent  God  has  risen  from  His  Throne 
to  strive  to  do  a  work,  and  could  not !  By  your  the- 
ory an  allwise  and  perfect  God  has  devised  and  exe- 
cuted a  plan,  which  has  miserably  failed  amid  the 
laughter  of  Hell  !  Your  recondite,  spiritual,  trans- 
cendental, vague  influence  from  Heaven,  to  guide  you 
into  certain  Truth — what  has  come  of  it  ? 

I  love  you,  O  my  relatives !  I  respect  your  sacred 
memories,  O  my  forefathers  !  but  your  Protestant  by- 
path, and  the  dark  and  inextricable  swamps  into  which 
it  leads — it  is  no  way  for  me  to  tread.  I  must  bid 
you  farewell  and  go  on  to  the  uplands  of  Truth.  Ven- 
erable is  the  past,  but  venerable  are  not  its  errors 
They  tell  us  that  mediaevalism  is  dead  beyond  resur- 
rection. So  it  is.  But  the  sixteenth  century  is  just 
as  dead,  too.  Begone,  sheeted  and  stinking  corpse ! 
The  nineteenth  century  hath  come.  We  will  live  with 
the  living,  and  not  in  tombs. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  led  you  up  to  the  presence  of 
your  second  great  question.     It  was  this  :  God  having 


40        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

come  in  a  visible  form,  must  have  done  one  of  two 
only  things  :  either  have  departed  or  remained  ;  and 
remained,  too,  not  in  the  vague,  spiritual,  transcen- 
dental sense  of  a  mere  impalpable  influence — for  that, 
we  see,  is  practically  to  have  departed — but  remained 
in  a  real,  tangible,  visible  and  organic  form,  through 
which  He  can  and  does  speak  audibly  to  the  world. 
These  are  the  only  thinkable  alternatives.  If  He  de- 
parted and  left  a  book  only,  then  we  are  Protestants. 
If  He  remained,  "  God  with  us,"  then  we  are  Catholics. 
But  we  cannot  adopt  this  position  that  He  departed 
bodily  without  being  driven  by  logic  to  deny  our  fun- 
damental statement  that  God  is  a  perfect,  all-powerful 
and  loving  God ;  without  being  driven  to  the  position 
that  He  is  a  God  who  strove  to  do  what  He  could  not ; 
a  God  devising  a  plan  that  failed ;  a  God  wishing  to 
help  us,  but  powerless  ;  a  loving  God  giving  us  a  hope 
but  cheating  us,  and  leaving  us  worse  off  than  before. 
We  are  driven  helplessly,  then,  on  to  the  other  alterna- 
tive, namely,  that  having  come  in  a  speaking  body  of 
human  matter,  He  remains  in  a  speaking  body,  an 
organic  form  of  human  matter.  And  we  find  this  one 
organic  form,  the  human  part  of  the  God-man  to-day 
on  earth,  in  His  Body  Mystical,  out  into  which  His 
Body  Natural  of  Palestine  has,  without  break  or  fis- 


Protestantism  and  Romanism.  41 

sure,  gradually  expanded  over  the  earth,  as  human 
beings,  plucked  like  branches  from  the  root  of  the 
first  Adam,  have,  out  of  all  generations,  been  grafted 
into  unity  with  It  by  Baptism,  and  as  His  one  Body 
and  Blood,  passing  through  the  Eucharist  equally 
into  all  the  branches,  have  incorporated  them  into 
Himself. 

He  is  still  the  God-man  on  earth.  He  perpetually 
incarnates  Himself.  He  is  still  '*with  us,"  taking 
human  nature  to  Himself,  and  so  abiding  in  a  one 
visible  Form  of  matter.  That  Form  is  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  is  not  a  mere  society  of  men  ;  it  is  the 
one  organic  Body  Mystical  of  Christ.  By  It  and 
through  It,  and  Its  marvelous  arms  and  limbs.  He 
literally  touches  us  that  His  graces  may  flow  through 
His  touch.  In  It  as  Its  living  soul,  and  through  It, 
He  speaks  to  us  audibly,  that  we  may  be  certified  we 
have  the  truth. 

We  are  not  cheated.  We  still  have,  by  logic,  by 
the  necessities  of  our  case,  by  the  sanction  of  the 
Divine  attributes,  and  in  actual,  historic  and  present 
existence,  the  Omniscient  God  on  earth,  remaining 
among  us,  according  to  the  promise  He  made  at  a 
moment  when,  otherwise,  we  would  have  thought  He 
was  departing — "Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 


42       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

the  end  of  the  world."  In  Him,  in  this  God  embodied 
in  the  one  Church,  in  this  God  continuously  visible 
and  audible,  therefore,  behold,  gentlemen,  the  Foun- 
tain of  infallibility  which  you  seek  ;  for  God  Himself 
cannot  err  nor  falsify.  And  as  the  one  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church  in  all  Its  parts.  His  own  Body,  raises  Its 
voice  and  chants  in  unison  round  and  round  the  world, 
in  unbroken  strain,  following  the  tireless  sun  through 
the  centuries  and  the  millenniums,  the  solemn  Catho- 
lic Creed  of  Nice,  Constantinople,  and  Athanasius, 
listen  :  it  is  the  voice  of  God  on  ■  earth,  Who  chanted 
the  great  prophetic  psalm,  "Deus,  Deus,"  from  the 
Cross,  chanting  aloud  that  all  the  peoples  in  all  time 
may  hear,  and  be  without  excuse,  the  unaltering  irre 
formable  Truth. 


SECOND    CONFERENCE. 

Catholicity,  a  Life  and  an  Organizer;  Protestantism, 
A  Disorganizer  and  a  Death. 

Gentlemen, 

St.  Thomas  of  Aquinas  defines  Life  as  a  spontane- 
ous motion.  It  is  something  more  than  this.  It  is  ^ 
mysterious  principle  pervading  the  universe,  whicL 
possesses  a  centralizing  force.  It  organizes  and  hai 
monizes.  It  sustains  in  existence  the  organic  form 
which  it  has  constructed.  It  is  the  mother  of  order 
and  beauty.  It  builds  the  crystalline  forms  with  their 
glittering  angles  j  it  works  out  for  itself,  and  then  pro- 
duces the  rustic  tracery  of  the  tree  ;  it  frames  and 
holds  together  the  bird,  the  beast  and  man  ;  it  con- 
structs the  family,  the  State,  the  Church ;  its  fountain 
is  God,  and  its  sanction  is,  "  Thou  shalt  do  no  mur- 
der." On  the  other  hand,  Death  is  a  disorganizer. 
It  is  a  despoiler  of  beauty.  On  its  anvil  it  smites  the 
diamond  into  powder ;  it  lays  the  tree  low  ;  it  slays 
bird  and  beast  and  man  ;  it  sends  hate,  divorce  and 
orphanage  into  the  family,  feuds  into  the  State,  schism 
into  the  Church ;  its  fountain  is  in  hell,  and  its  fiat  is : 


44        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romamsm, 

"  That  which  is,  shall  not  be  ;  that  which  is  gathering 
into  unity,  shall  be  scattered  into  severalty ;  that 
which  is  organizing,  shall  be  decomposed."  Life, 
then,  is  the  love  of  beauty  and  of  order;  Death  their 
foe  and  destroyer. 

It  is  my  privilege,  gentlemen,  at  this  conference  to 
present  Catholicity  to  you  as  a  Life  and  as  an  Organi- 
zer j  and  it  will  follow  that  the  fountain  whence  She 
springs  is  God,  and  not  Satan. 

What  was  it  that  this  life,  issuing  from  the  bosom 
of  God,  went  forth  to  organize  and  to  compact  ?  What 
was  it  that  was  to  be  gathered  together  out  of  its 
severalty  into  unity?  It  was  the  human  race  ;  which, 
when  it  fell  away  from  God,  went  into  pieces,  and  lay 
upon  earth  disintegrated  and  dying.  It  fell  from  Him 
Who  was  not  only  the  Life,  but  Who  was  also  Love. 
Cut  off  from  Charity,  therefore,  selfishness,  hates,  en- 
vies and  angers  were  the  mutually  repellant  force  in 
its  bosom,  sundering  its  individuals  apart  from  each 
other,  its  families  and  its  States. 

The  life,  which  we  call  Catholicity,  goes  forth  into 
these  ruins  as  an  organizing  and  integrating  force  to 
build  a  structure  of  order  and  beauty.  What  was  its 
cohesive  operation  as  it  thus  went  forth ;  and  what 
^he  marvelous  structure  it  erects  and  sustains  t    It 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  45 

formed  an  organism  in  which  are  four  great  couplings 
or  unifications.  The  first  of  these  unifications  had, 
indeed,  existed  in  the  eternity  of  the  past — namely, 
the  unity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  archetypal, 
interior  structure  of  God  ;  the  second  and  the  third  of 
the  great  couplings  take  place  during  the  scene  of 
time  present ;  in  order  to  carry  the  fourth,  final  and 
permanent  unity,  namely,  of  human  beings  with  Christ, 
through  the  eternity  of  the  future.  Go  back  with  me, 
then,  to  the  first,  and  behold  this  living  force  of  Catho- 
licity going  forth  to  its  great  integrating,  organizing 
and  centralizing  work  among  the  poor  fragments  with 
which  it  has  to  deal.  Behold  the  unifications  which 
it  successively  effects  as  it  proceeds  in  its  benign  work. 
I  St.  From  all  past  eternity  the  Father  and  the  Son 
in  God  have  been  of  One  Substance.  If  the  Father 
is  God,  the  Son  is  God  of  God  ;  if  the  Father  is  Light, 
the  Son  is  Light  out  of  Light ;  and  as  the  Father  is 
liife,  the  Son  is  Life  of  Life  :  /.  e.  life  flows  out  of  the 
Father,  Who  is  its  fountain  in  God,  and  owing  to  the 
unity  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  so  fills  the  Son 
that  the  Son  can  come  to  the  earth  with  the  great 
statement,  "  I  am  the  Life."  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  first  unification  ;  in  God  from  all  past  eternity  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  One.     It  is  in  the  Trinity  and 


46        Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  JRomanism. 

the  entire  unity  of  Its  Persons  that  we  have  the  hope 
and  the  prophecy  of  human  reintegration.  For, 
secondly,  God  the  Son  descended  into  the  Temple  of 
Nature,  took  manhood  to  Himself  in  the  womb  of  the 
Virgin,  was  born  and  stood  among  us  the  God -man. 
Here  we  have  the  second  great  unification  effected  ; 
Christ's  Manhood,  namely,  so  entirely  one  with  His 
Godhead,  that  there  was  no  obstruction  to  hinder  the 
life,  which  from  all  past  eternity  He  had  from  the 
Father,  from  flowing  from  His  Godhead  into  and 
filling  His  Manhood. 

3d.  The  third  great  unity  in  the  successive  steps 
was  the  oneness  between  Christ's  Man's  Nature  and 
His  Church  ;  a  union,  as  we  saw  at  our  last  confer- 
ence, without  break  or  fissure  between  them.  In- 
deed, Scripture  exhausts  all  metaphor  in  the  effort  to 
make  us  realize  the  consummate  integrity  of  this  third 
great  unification.  The  oneness  of  man  and  wife, 
though  they  be  declared  by  God  to  be  one  only  flesh, 
is  not  sufficient.  The  oneness  of  the  head  and  human 
body,  though  ''from  the  head  all  the  body  is  by  joints 
and  bands  knit  together,"  is  not  sufficient.  If  we  are 
the  branches,  He  is  not  the  stock,  but  the  whole  vine. 
Indeed,  the  Church  is  so  one  with  Him  that  it  is 
called  by  His  name,  Jesus  Christ.     Owing,  therefore^ 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  47 

to  the  unity  between  the  Man's  Nature  of  Christ  and 
His  Church,  the  life  which  had  flowed  from  His  God- 
head into  His  Body  Natural  now  flows  out  from  the 
latter  and  fills  His  Church. 

4th.  There  is  but  one  more  unification,  the  fourth, 
which  completes  the  vast  constructive  work.  In  it 
the  poor  broken  fragments  are  reintegrated  into  this 
structure,  organized,  harmonized  and  sustained: 
namely,  the  unity  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Bap- 
tism between  each  separated  individual  of  the  race 
and  this  one  Catholic  Church.  The  life  therefore  that 
is  in  the  Church,  now  flows  into  the  baptized  man 
owing  to  his  unity  with  the  Church. 

Behold,  then,  gentlemen,  the  kindly,  loving,  recon- 
structive force  of  Catholic  life  at  its  work,  gathering 
poor  disintegrated  humanity,  one  by  one,  through  the 
fourth  unification  into  oneness  with  its  one  Holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church — which  was  already 
one  with  the  Manhood  of  Christ ;  which  Manhood  was, 
through  the  second  unification,  already  one  with  the 
Godhead  of  Christ ;  which  Godhead,  through  the  first 
unification,  was  always  one  with  God  the  Father  in 
the  eternity  of  the  past.  Behold  how  life,  flowing  with 
a  unity  of  purpose  through  these  living  links,  binds  all 
together — Christians,  Church,  Christ  and  the  Father 


4$       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Who  is  the  Fountain  of  Life — into  a  unique  and  sub- 
lime structure,  and  carries  reintegrated  humanity  out 
of  time  present  to  sustain  it  in  God  through  the 
eternity  of  the  future.  Behold,  too,  in  all  this,  how 
the  one  Holy  Catholic  Church  and  Its  Baptismal 
Sacrament  are  inseparable,  indispensable  and  undying 
elements  in  the  whole  grand  organism  of  life  and 
unity.  "  Thou  shall  not  commit  murder,"  is  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  sacredness  and  pricelessness  of  that  one 
visible  Apostolic  Church,  and  of  its  blessed  life-giving 
Sacraments.  To  slay  the  Godhead  of  Christ  and  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  as  do  the  Arians,  Socinus 
and  Priestly ;  to  slay  the  Church  as  does  Protestant- 
ism ;  to  slay  the  Sacraments  as  do  Simeon  and  Chil- 
ling worth,  is  to  break  in  upon  this  structure  of  unity, 
and  to  slay  God's  plan  of  salvation. 

But,  gentlemen,  in  all  this,  what  have  I  been  giv- 
ing you  ?  I  have  simply  been  giving  you  that  plan  of 
salvation,  that  Gospel  in  little,  that  solemn  Creed  of 
Nice,  Constantinople  and  Athanasius,  which  the  three 
Communions,  Anglican,  Roman  and  Greek,  of  the 
One  Catholic  Church,  which  the  three  national  types 
of  Catholic  man,  Saxon,  Latin  and  Oriental,  hold  in 
common,  and  chant  ceaselessly  to  the  peoples  as  the 
sun  goes  round  the  world  through  the  centuries ;  the 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  49 

Christian  Creed,  which  that  one  tripartite  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church  alone,  too,  holds.  For  Protestantism, 
which  is  the  disintegrating,  destructive,  disorganizing 
and  scattering  element  in  Christianity,  does  not  and 
cannot  hold  that  Creed,  or  proclaim  it  to  the  nations. 
Do  you  ask  why  ?  Two  reasons.  Following  its  death- 
giving  instincts,  it  rends  that  Creed  apart,  disintegrat- 
ing it  article  from  article,  and  then  cheats  the  world 
by  declaring  of  each  and  every  separate  article,  "  I 
believe  it."  But  the  Creed,  like  all  of  Catholicity's 
works,  is  organic  and  a  unit ;  it  is  built  up,  a  thing  of 
life  like  a  flower ;  article  grows  out  of  previous  article, 
and  opens  out  into  the  following  ;  so  that  its  articles 
cannot  thus  be  sundered  from  each  other,  or  re-ar- 
ranged, any  more  than  a  flower  can  be  torn  apart, 
petal  from  petal,  and  sepal  from  stamen,  and  pistil 
from  ovary,  and  remain  a  flower.  Though  you  may 
have  in  your  hand  afterward  all  its  parts,  you  have  not 
the  flower.  For  this  holy  and  unalterable  Creed  of 
Catholicity  expresses  something  as  a  whole,  over  and 
abov^e  the  sense  of  its  separate  articles,  which  is  the 
very  thing,  the  very  Gospel,  the  very  plan  of  salvation 
Protestantism  will  not  admit,  hates,  and  with  murder- 
ous instinct  would  slay.  It  makes  necessary  the  four 
great  unifications,  and  among  them,  as  a  part  of  the 
3 


5©        Catholicity y  Protestantism  a7id  Romajiism. 

plan  of  salvation,  the  one  great  Catholic  Church  in  Its 
Saxon,  Oriental  and  Latin  sides  ;  Its  Apostolic  min- 
istry, and  Its  Sacrificial,  Sacerdotal  and  Sacrainental 
systems. 

Secondly  :  but  I  hear  you  say.  gentlemen,  surely 
Protestantism  asserts  that  it  believes  in  a  Catholic 
Church.  True  ;  but  what  does  it  mean  ?  It  means, 
and  it  means  avowedly,  merely  some  vague,  disinte- 
grated nebula  of  all  tolerably  good  folk,  baptized  and 
unbaptized,  for  it  includes  the  Quakers  and  others. 
Nebula,  do  I  say  ?  A  nebula  is  something  we  can 
see,  at  least  with  a  telescope,  and  map  out  in  its  gen- 
eral shape,  however  hazy.  But  this  indiscriminate 
muster  of  Protestantism  retires,  when  we  look  at  it, 
into  the  complete  indistinctness  and  incertitude  of  a 
profound  and  permanent  invisibility.  Gentlemen,  this 
is  not  the  organic  Catholic  Church  of  the  Creed. 
This  is  not  to  believe  the  Creed,  but  to  believe  some- 
thing else  of  Protestantism's  own  invention.  To  be- 
lieve the  Creed,  is  to  believe  what  that  Creed  was 
written  to  mean,  and  what  it  always  has  meant  froni 
time  immemorial.  But  to  excogitate  out  of  the  pro- 
found depths  of  ingenuity  a  totally  new  and  modern 
idea,  and  to  cover  that  totally  different  and  antago- 
nistic idea  with  the  garment  of  an  ancient  phrase,  and 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  51 

then  send  the  new  idea  forth,  a  mere  wolf  in  sheep's 
clothing,  is  to  act  the  part  of  the  disingenuous,  and  tc 
do  the  work  of  him  whom  the  Saviour  called  •''  the 
liar  from  the  beginning  and  the  father  of  lies."  The 
phrase  "  Holy  Catholic  Church  "  is  a  cover  of  definite 
shape  that  will  fit  only  one  receptacle  ;  and  it  cannot 
be  made,  by  any  manipulation,  to  hold  under  itself 
and  within  its  rims  the  innumerable  suppositions  of 
Protestantism  sprawling  off  hither  and  yon  at  their 
own  wild  will. 

But  life  is  not  only  an  organizing  and  uniting 
force,  it  is  also,  as  St.  Thomas  says,  a  spontaneous 
motion.  Now  *'  all  motion,"  (I  quote  from  another) 
"  bears  in  its  very  essence  the  idea  of  a  starting  point, 
of  a  point  to  be  reached,  and  of  an  effort  to  pass  from 
the  one  to  the  other."  If,  then,  Catholicity  be  a  life 
and  not  a  destroyer,  if  its  fountain  be  in  God  and  not 
in  hell,  then,  as  such  life,  it  must  exhibit  not  only  this 
constructive  force  which  I  have  shown,  but  also  this 
element  of  motion,  and  these  peculiarities  of  motion — 
namely,  a  starting  point,  a  point  to  be  reached,  and  a 
flowing  from  the  one  to  the  other. 

High  up  in  far-away  mountains  there  is  a  vast 
reservoir  of  water.  From  the  end  of  that  great  lake 
its  floods  tumble  in  white  cataract  into  a  basin  on  a 


52        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

lower  level,  and  form  there  a  second  enormous  reser- 
voir. From  the  opposite  end  of  this  second  lake  the 
waters  tumble  again  into  a  third  basin  on  a  still  lower 
level.  From  the  opposite  end  of  this  third  basin  they 
fall  again  into  a  fourth  lake  still  further  below.  From 
the  lower  end  of  this  fourth  sheet  of  water  they  issue  in 
innumerable  radiating  rills  and  streams  over  the  level 
lowlands,  filling  them  with  verdure,  with  beauty  and 
with  fruits.  You  have  here  in  these  four  lakes,  one 
below  the  other,  and  the  luxuriant  plain  spread  out  at 
their  foot,  an  apt  illustration  of  life  and  grace  issuing 
as  a  motion  from  God  the  Father,  and  reaching  at 
last  by  Mediation  the  lowlands  of  poor  humanity,  to 
turn  them  from  a  desert  into  a  garden.  Life  and 
grace,  which  we  all  need  in  place  of  death  and  weak- 
ness, issue  from  God  the  Father,  their  original  Foun- 
tain, and  fall  first  into  God  the  Son.  They  next  fall 
into  the  Man's  Nature  of  Jesus  Christ.  From  this 
they  descended  on  Pentecost  into  the  great  lake  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  filling  its  enormous  basin ;  whence 
they  issue  finally  and  flow,  through  the  openings  of 
the  Sacraments,  into  the  many  stream  beds  of  human 
lives,  and  fill  the  world  with  the  flowers  of  sanctity 
and  the  fruits  of  good  works.  God  the  Father  is  the 
starting  point   of  this   life.     God   the   Son,  in   Pli? 


Catholicity   and  Protestantism.  53 

Catholic  Church  and  through  Its  Sacraments,  is  the 
mediatory  receptacle,  from  Whom  this  overflowing  life 
and  grace  reach  humanity,  which  is  the  term  of  all. 

In  our  last  conference  I  conducted  you  up  to  Jesus 
Christ  in  His  visible  Catholic  Church  as  its  Soul  and 
Life.  It  was  here  that  you  found,  embodied  on  earth, 
Him  who  is  Infallibility  itself,  because  He  is  God. 
It  is  through  this.  His  one  visible,  organic  Body  Mys- 
tical, inseparable  from  Himself,  unless  indeed  you 
slay  the  God-man  now  on  earth,  that  you  heard  Him 
chanting  continuously  the  unalterable  and  irreform- 
able  truth.  And  that  in  which  He  chants  aloud  this 
truth  to  all  the  nations  is  the  Catholic  Creed. 

What,  then,  is  the  Creed  ?  What  is  the  infallible 
truth?  In  what  I  have  said  above,  I  repeat,  I  have 
been  giving  you  simply  that  Catholic  Creed.  P'or  the 
Creed  is  nothing  less  and  nothing  more  than  a  history 
of  the  course  which  life  and  grace  take  from  stage  to 
stage,  as  they  issue  from  God  the  Father,  and,  pass- 
ing through  the  Godhead,  and  the  Body  Natural  and 
Mystical  of  the  Son,  reach  at  last,  through  Baptism, 
human  beings  that  need  them.  The  Creed  is  the 
Gospel  in  little ;  the  good  news  unto  men  ;  the  way 
of  salvation.  For  the  Creed  begins  with  :  "  /  believe 
in  one  God  the  Father  Almighty.  Maker  of  heaven  and 


54       Catholicity^  Protestaiitism  and  Romanism. 

earthy  And  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible"  It 
begins,  then,  with  the  Father  as  the  Fountain  of  aU 
things  j  the  Fountain,  therefore,  of  the  life  and  grace 
which  we  need  after  the  fall.  But  it  is  the  history, 
not  of  all  things,  but  simply  of  the  course  of  that 
grace.  It  passes  next,  therefore,  and  announces  the 
reservoir  into  which  life  and  grace  first  flow  from  the 
Father :  "  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  of  God;"  and  it  announces  the  first  unifica- 
tion ;  that,  namely,  between  Father  and  Son,  existing 
in  the  eternity  of  the  past :  "  Begotten  of  His  Father 
before  all  worlds^  God  of  God;  Light  of  Light;  very 
God  of  very  God;  Begotten  not  made  ;  Beingof  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father;  By  Whom  all  things  wert 
made. " 

It  then  gives  the  next  reservoir  into  which  the  life 
and  grace  flow,  and  announces  the  second  great  unifi- 
cation— namely,  God  and  man  in  Christ — "  Who  for 
us  men,  and  for  our  salvation  ^  came  down  from  heaven. 
And  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin 
Mary^  And  was  made  man"  But  human  nature, 
before  it  could,  even  as  it  stood  on  earth  in  the  person 
of  Christ,  receive  and  be  filled  with  the  very  fullness 
of  life  and  grace,  must  first  undergo,  even  in  Christ,  a 
time  of  probation,  of  temptation,  of  trial.     There  are 


Catholicity  and  Protestantisui.  55 

profound  reasons  for  this,  almost  if  not  quite  beyond 
the  grasp  of  human  ken,  but  which  God  Himself 
displays  in  furtive  flashes  out  of  that  sublime  passage 
beginning,  ''  For  it  became  Him  for  Whom  are  all 
things,  and  by  Whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many 
sons  to  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufferings,"  and  ending  with,  *'  For  in 
that  He,  Himself,  hath  suifered,  being  tempted,  He  is 
able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted."  The  Creed, 
therefore,  goes  on  to  give  the  process  by  which  the 
Man's  Nature  of  Christ  was  prepared  through  '''suffer- 
ings, crucifixion  under  Pontius  Pilate^  death  and  burial, 
to  rise  again  the  third  day,  and  to  ascend,^^  not  astronomi- 
cally, but  to  ascend  in  the  highest  moral  and  spiritual 
elevation,  even  into  the  condition  and  lofty  spiritual  com- 
panionship of  the  Most  High,  "  to  receive  there,"  in  that 
moral  and  spiritual  exaltation,  "  the  gifts  for  men," 
and,  on  Pentecost,  to  pour  those  gifts  forth  from  His 
Body  Natural  which  had  thus  gained  them,  and  fill 
with  them  His  Body  Mystical,  the  Church.  Hence 
the  Creed  goes  on  to  say,  "  /believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Lord  and  Giver  of  Life,  Who  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  and^^  not  from  the  Father  only,  but  also  from 
"  the  Son  ;  and  L  believe  in  the  one  Holy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church.''^ 


56       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Here  we  strike  the  third  great  unification — the 
oneness,  nay,  the  identity  of  the  Church  with  the 
Man's  Nature  of  Christ,  even  as  it  is  said,  "  The 
Church,  which  is  His  Body,  the  fullness  of  Him  that 
filleth  all  in  all ;"  and  as  it  is  said  again,  "  Ye  are  the 
Body  of  Christ  and  members  in  particular."  Let  us 
pause  here  a  moment  before  we  go  on  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  Creed. 

You  will  remember  that  at  the  close  of  our  last 
conference  we  were  left  forced  into  a  certain  conclu- 
sion. We  were  forced  by  logic,  by  the  necessities  of 
our  casCj  and  by  the  attributes  of  God  Himself,  into 
the  conclusion  that  God,  having  descended  visibly  into 
the  Temple  of  Nature,  having  so  come  that  He  could 
touch  and  be  touched  by  us,  and  that  He  could  speak 
to  us  audibly  through  an  organic  form  of  human  mat- 
ter, must  have  remained  with  us  in  a  one  visible  form 
of  human  matter.  This  kind  of  remaining  only,  we 
found,  would  be  an  effectual  relief.  The  other  only 
thinkable  suppositions  left  us  worse  off"  than  ever. 
Besides,  why  should  one  small  country,  one  brief  gen- 
eration, thus  have  the  inestimable  boon  of  His  pres- 
ence en  rapport  with  itself,  and  not  all  nations  and  all 
subsequent  time  as  well  ?  Let  us  take  up  this  sub- 
ject, then,  where  we  left  it  at  the  last  conference, 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  57 

particularly  as  it  relates  to  the  spot  in  the  Creed  at 
which  we  have  arrived. 

We  having  been  forced  into  the  conclusion  that 
God  must  remain  on  earth  en  rapport  with  us,  the 
problem  here  is,  How  was  He  thus  to  remain  in  a  one 
organic  body  of  human  matter ;  a  continuous  body, 
too,  that  should  be  His  own  Body,  still  surrounding 
His  Soul  and  Divinity,  and  in  unbroken  unity  with 
Them  ?  There  are  many  reasons  why,  if  the  first  or 
natural  form  of  His  Body  had  continued  visible  among 
us,  it  would  not  have  satisfied  the  requirements  of  our 
case.  For  that  first  form  and  condition  of  His  visible 
Body  was  loca. ;  it  could  stand  on  only  one  contracted 
spot,  while  we  need  Him  simultaneously  in  all  nations, 
all  round  the  world,  in  a  Body  that  shall  speak  to  us, 
forgive  us  our  sins,  touch  us  and  feed  us.  To  that 
first  condition  of  His  visible  Body,  which  we  call  the 
Body  Natural,  a  few  thousand  only  could  have  clus- 
tered at  one  time  \  while  we  all,  and  all  round  the 
world,  need  to  gather  simultaneously  to  "  God  with 
us,"  at  any  time  and  at  all  times.  The  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  human  race,  moreover,  are  sons  of  toil, 
and  could  not  have  traveled  to  Him.  Besides,  there 
were  something  shocking  in  the  supposition  of  that 
fair  ^orm  upon  whose  bosom  St.  John  leaned,  continu* 
3* 


$8        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

ing  visible  for  centuries,  descending  to  the  wrinkled 
brow  and  thin  silver  locks  of  extreme  old  age,  and 
lasting,  undying,  beyond  even  that,  in  a  decrepitude  ol 
millenniums  which  we  know  nothing  of.  This  were 
the  extreme  of  the  unnatural.  God  never  acts  in  a 
shocking  or  unnatural  way ;  and  such  act  were  be- 
neath the  dignity  of  God.  And  yet  logic,  our  neces- 
sities and  the  attributes  of  God  have  driven  us  to  the 
only  conclusion  that  God  must  remain  on  earth  in  His 
one  organic  Body  \  that  He  must  so  remain  as  not  to 
shock  us  j  that  He  must  so  remain  that  His  Body 
shall  be,  however  aged,  yet  ever  fresh  and  youthful ; 
ever  one,  yet  everywhere  simultaneously  present 
throughout  the  world.  Mighty  problem  !  Who  shall 
solve  it  ?  Not  you,  gentlemen,  nor  I,  nor  the  wisest 
philosopher  that  ever  lived.  But  what  is  thus  beyond 
human  ingenuity — what  is  quite  impossible  to  men — 
is  easy  to  God.  For  there  are  natural  laws  of  growth 
and  expansion,  and  there  are  supernatural  laws  of 
growth  and  expansion.  The  Divine  voice  had  said  in 
the  ancient  time  that  *'  The  stone  cut  out  without 
hands,"  the  Human,  visible  Nature  of  Christ,  should 
**  grow  and  become  a  great  mountain  and  fill  the  whole 
earth."  And  the  Divine  ingenuity,  in  the  fullness  of 
time,  found  out  a  way  by  which  His  Body  Natural 


Catholicity  and  Frotestantistn.  59 

could  expand  without  break  or  fissure  into  His  Body 
Mystical,  the  Catholic  Church,  and  fill  the  whole  earth. 
The  Natural  and  the  Mystical  forms  of  His  Body  of 
human  matter  are  but  two  consecutive  visible  condi- 
tions of  that  Body ;  the  one  local,  the  other  universal  \ 
its  natural  condition  going  up  and  disappearing  on  Oli- 
vet, only  that  the  Mystical  condition  might  thencefor- 
ward alone  be  visible  and  tangible  on  earth.  Natural 
bodies  expand  from  infancy  to  childhood,  to  youth,  to 
manhood,  by  natural  law ;  God's  Human  Body  then 
continued  ceaselessly  to  expand,  but  by  supernatural 
law.  Besides,  at  the  very  time  when  we  would  have  sup- 
posed that,  on  Olivet,  He  was  departing  out  of  his  con- 
dition of  visibility  among  us.  He  took  occasion  solemn- 
ly to  disabuse  us  of  this  error ;  to  disclose  to  us  that  He 
was  not ;  to  say  to  us,  "  Lo,  I  am  still  with  you,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  Of  course  He  had  always 
been  with  us  in  His  impalpable  omnipresence.  If  He 
had  meant  to  say  that  He  would  merely  continue  thus 
to  be  invisibly  and  inaudibly  with  us,  a  mere  influence, 
He  would  have  been  uttering  a  needless  truism.  Nay, 
it  was  no  such  truism  that  He  was  guilty  of  But 
what  He  impressed  upon  us  was  that,  as  He  had  been 
en  rapport  with  us,  so  He  would  continue  to  be  until 
:he  end.     The  event  at  Olivet  was  a  disappearance  of 


5o        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

the  first  and  temporary  condition  of  his  visibility  to 
make  way  for  the  second  and  lasting  condition.  He 
that  first  took  our  human  nature,  binding  it  to  Him- 
self in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  goes  on  taking  our 
human  nature  to  Himself  till  the  number  of  the  elect 
is  made  up.  The  Incarnation  is  a  perpetual  fact. 
What  is  the  supernatural  law,  then,  under  which  His 
own  Personal  Body  continues  to  expand  ?  It  is  this  : 
human  beings  are  baptized  into  Christ,  according  as 
it  is  said,  "  We  are  members  of  His  body,  of  His  flesh 
and  of  His  bones.'  "  Human  beings,  sprouting  like 
so  many  separate  branches  from  the  poisoned  root  of 
Adam,  are  plucked  thence  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  in 
Baptism,  grafted  into  the  new  tree,  Christ ;  our  bodies 
into  His,  our  souls  into  His,  our  hopes,  our  imagina- 
tions, our  passions,  our  reason  into  His ;  and  so  the 
Tree  enlarges  ;  so  His  Body  visible  expands ;  so  "  the 
Stone  grows  and  becomes  a  great  Mountain  and  fills 
the  whole  earth  ; "  according  as  it  is  said,  "  Ye  are  the 
Body  of  Christ  and  members  in  particular."  Branch 
after  branch  being  thus  grafted  into  the  Vine,  Christ 
then  sends  forth  through  the  Eucharist  His  one  Body 
and  Blood  into  all  the  branches  simultaneously,  and 
binds  them  up  together  into  His  own  visible  Catholic 
Body ;  according  as  it  is  said,  "  For  we  being  many. 


Catholicity  ana  Protestantism.  6i 

are  one  bread  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread."  And  so,  since  the  Resurrection 
and  until  the  end  of  time,  it  is  life  that  still  playeth  in 
His  Body  on  earth.  The  Catholic  life  is  among  us  ; 
the  life  that  centralizes,  organizes,  integrates,  har- 
monizes, beautifies,  builds  and  sustains  that  Body. 
No,  no  ;  death,  that  disorganizes,  loosens  and  scat- 
ters, hath  no  part  in  It.  It  hath  overcome  death  ; 
and,  lo,  "  The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against   It." 

Life  is  not  only  thus,  gentlemen,  the  love  of  order, 
and  of  organism,  and  of  unity,  but  it  is  also  the  love 
of  freshness  and  of  beauty.  God  Himself,  who  is  the 
Life,  must  by  the  laws  of  His  Being  finish  His  works. 
He  must  adorn  the  meadows  with  flowers,  the  streams 
with  rocks  and  cascades,  the  lakes  with  green  islands, 
each  billow  with  a  white  blossom  atop,  and  the  very 
night  with  diamonds.  And  life  from  God  could  nof 
enter  into  and  play  within  the  great  Catholic  Body, 
without  Its  breaking  forth  also,  not  only  into  the 
beauty  of  meekness  and  of  purity  and  of  all  sanctity, 
but  also  into  the  wonders  of  fair  religious  statuary, 
paintings,  architecture  and  music,  the  robed  proces- 
sion, the  incense,  the  banner,  the  fringed  canopy,  the 
brilliant  altar,  and  the  fair  pomp  and  form.     It  was 


62        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

that  whose  other  name  is  Death,  the  destroyer,  the  foe 
of  organism,  of  freshness  and  of  beauty,  that  smote  all 
this  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  tramples  the  flowers 
to-day  as  the  fecund  Life  sends  them  forth  once  more 
to  clothe  the  wide  waste  of  desolation. 

Here,  then,  we  have,  gentlemen,  the  infallible  God 
in  a  Body  on  earth,  even  in  the  One  Holy  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church,  as  its  Soul.  And  because  we 
say  of  a  man  that  we  see  him  when  we  look  at  his 
form,  though  his  soul  be  invisible,  so  we  all  around 
the  world,  as  they  in  Palestine,  have  the  Infallible 
God  still  visible,  tangible  and  audible  among  us  ;  we 
see  Him,  we  touch  Him  with  reverent  hand. 

Now,  His  Body  of  human  matter  having  thus 
grown  out  by  supernatural  law  into  so  marvelous  and 
everywhere  present  a  structure,  it  follows,  if  He  is  to 
continue  to  apply  Himself  to  the  world  through  It,  as 
He  did  in  Palestine  through  His  Natural  Body,  that 
It  must  have  everywhere  new  and  marvelous  limbs 
and  organs  which  He  may  stretch  forth  to  poor  hu- 
manity, and  by  which  He  may  touch  us,  and  teach  us, 
and  pardon  us,. and  feed  us.  In  Palestine,  with  the 
limbs  of  His  Body  Natural,  He  tenderly  touched  the 
white  eye-balls  of  the  blind  and  the  silent  ear  chambers 
of  the  deaf     He  laid  His  loving  hands  on  children,  oo 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  63. 

the  sick,  on  the  sinner,  and  on  bread  and  wine,  that 
pardon,  and  blessing,  and  transformation,  and  all  gifts 
and  graces  might  flow  from  Him  through  His  Body, 
and  through  even  His  garments,  to  those  that  were 
touched.  What,  then,  are  the  new  and  marvelous 
limbs  of  this  His  marvelous  supernatural  Body  ?  They 
are  the  Catholic,  life-giving,  grace- conferring  Sacra- 
ments and  Ministry.  These  are  but  limbs  of  His 
Personal  Body  Mystical,  which  He  stretches  forth 
to  us,  by  which  He  touches  us,  and  conveys  to  us 
His  graces  all  around  the  world. 

A  hand  and  arm  separated  from  a  living  human 
body  is  but  a  piece  of  powerless  clay.  But  slip  the  arm 
into  its  socket  in  the  living  body,  and  the  soul  within, 
using  that  poor  piece  of  clay,  performs  with  it  its 
own  mighty  deeds.  So  a  man  separated  from  Christ's 
Body  Mystical — a  man  considered  merely  in  himself 
alone — is  the  very  type  of  powerlessness.  But  when 
set  in  a  socket  of  Christ's  Mystical  Body  as  a  Priest 
or  a  Bishop,  the  God  within  that  Body,  using  the  poor 
frame  of  clay  as  His  own  arm  and  hand,  performs  with 
it  His  divine  and  mighty  deeds  among  us.  pardons  in 
the  Sacrament  of  Penitence,  transforms  bread  and 
wine  at  the  Altar,  blesses,  regenerates  in  Baptism, 
anoints  with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Confirmation,  makes 


64        Catholicity^  Frotesta7itism  and  Romanism. 

of  twain  one  flesh,  confers  the  grace  of  Orders  through 
His  touch,  and  either  raises  the  sick  from  death  or 
sends  the  soul  healed  into  eternity.  The  Sacraments 
and  the  Ministry  are  His  limbs  with  which  He  touches 
us.  Tactual  succession  t  Why  of  course  '*  God  is  with 
us  "  in  a  Body,  and  literally  touches  us.  When  His 
arm  and  hand,  a  Priest,  baptises  an  infant,  it  is  not  a 
man  that  is  baptising,  or  mere  water  that  we  are  look- 
ing at ;  we  are  looking  at  Christ's  own  arm  and  hand 
stretched  forth  and  visibly  taking  our  dear  one  and 
grafting  it  into  Himself;  at  the  holy  Altar  we  see  in 
the  human  Priest  God's  visible  hand  touch  and  bless 
the  bread  before  our  eyes  and  convey  it  to  us ;  when 
one  is  confirmed  or  ordained  to  the  Priesthood  we  are 
literally  beholding  Christ  stretching  forth  His  marvel- 
ous hand,  a  Bishop,  and  conveying  the  Holy  Ghost 
either  to  the  work  of  the  ordinary  Christian  or  to  the 
work  of  the  Priesthood.  And  it  is  He  that  at  last 
takes  our  poor  soulless  body  and,  in  the  requieni,  lays 
it  tenderly  away  till  He  shall  summon  it  at  the  resur- 
rection. Beware ;  he  that  hath  eyes  to  see  let  him 
see.  The  quickening  touch  of  God's  Body  on  earth  ? 
Ah,  gentlemen,  as  true  are  the  words  of  Manning,  as 
they  are  consummately  beautiful :  "  When  the  Wis- 
dom of  God  came  into  the  world,  He  laid  His  hands 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  65 

jpon  a  multitude  of  things  ;  upon  the  sick,  the  afflicted, 
the  hungry,  the  dying;  upon  little  children,  upon  the 
bread  He  blessed  and  brake  in  the  wilderness  ;  upon 
sorrow  and  upon  pain  ;  and,  lastly.  He  laid  them  upon 
the  Cross  j  and  wherever  He  laid  His  hands  He  left  a 
sweetness  and  a  fragrance  which  wisdom  can  perceive 
and  wisdom  alone  can  know."  Look,  gentlemen,  at 
your  Protestantism.  O  Protestantism,  in  thine  un- 
wisdom thou  wilt  drag  the  world,  and  even  the  little 
ones  of  thy  bosom,  away  from  the  touch  of  Christ. 

Here,  then,  stands  the  Catholic  Church  with  con- 
tinuous life  from  the  first ;  here  It  stands  all  round 
the  world.  In  It  is  God,  for  It  is  His  personal  Body  ; 
through  It  He  applies  Himself  by  Ministry  and  Sacra- 
ments to  poor  humanity ;  to  It  He  made  the  solemn 
promise  that  He  would  guide  It,  when  It  spoke  as  a 
unit,  into  all  truth  ;  not  that  It  could  possibly  speak 
error  any  more  than  could  His  Body  Natural  '"n 
Palestine,  It  being  the  organ  of  His  Soul  and  Divin- 
ity ;  but  He  made  the  solemn  promise  in  kindly 
and  descending  consideration  to  our  weakness.  If 
He  promised  to  guide  It,  when  It  spoke  as  a  unit, 
into  all  truth,  how  can  any  one  suppose  it  to  be  falli- 
Dle,  and  liable  to  lead  us  into  error,  without  charging 
Christ  with  breaking  His  promise,  and  so  not  being 


66        Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

God  at  all  ?  Thus  it  is  always  that  the  Protestant 
denial  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  a 
first  fatal  step  in  that  inevitable  logical  descent,  which 
ends  in  denying  the  Godhead  of  Christ  and  setting 
up  Unitarianism  with  its  murder  of  the  Atonement  in 
the  world. 

What,  then,  has  the  Catholic  Church,  as  a  unit, 
spoken  ?  What  is  the  infallible  Truth  ?  It  is  the 
Creed  which  I  have  given  you.  This  is  all  that  It  has 
formally  announced  by  Its  six  general  Councils.  This 
is  the  antagonist  of  Protestantism,  since  life  is  always 
the  antagonist  of  death.  But,  besides  the  formal 
statements  of  the  Creed,  there  are  other  things  which 
we  know  to  be  true  also ;  not  because  the  whole 
Church  Catholic  hath  formulated  them  in  general 
Council  and  accepted  them  as  thus  formulated,  but 
because  the  Church's  documentary  voice  has  always, 
and  in  all  Its  three  parts,  everywhere  declared  them, 
and  would  have  thrown  them  into  formulas  had  it  been 
necessary;  viz.,  the  Sacerdotal  and  Sacramental 
systems,  the  Apostolic  succession,  Priestly  absolution, 
the  real  objective  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist, 
Baptismal  regeneration.  Prayers  for  the  dead,  and 
lights,  incense,  vestments,  adoration  and  song  as  the 
five  essentials   of  Christian  worship.     Of  these  all; 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  67 

every  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  ancient,  mediaeval 
and  modern,  Latin,  Saxon  and  Oriental,  Anglican, 
Roman  and  Greek,  have  held  no  doubt,  but  have  con- 
tinuously and  consentingly  asserted  them  in  ritual 
and  official  documents.  The  points  on  which  the 
Anglican,  Greek  and  Roman  Communions  differ  are 
points  over  and  above  these  ;  points  upon  which  the 
whole  Church  has  not  yet  spoken. 

Let  us  return  and  go  on  with  the  Creed.  After 
making  its  great  announcement,  "  /  believe  in  the  one 
Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church''  it  proceeds  to 
announce  the  fourth  and  final  great  unification  in  the 
reconstructing  work  that  Life  is  effecting — namely,  "  / 
acknowledge  one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.'"'  In 
this  Baptism  each  individual  is  brought  into  unity  with 
the  reservoir  of  grace.  And  then  comes  the  grand 
close.  For,  of  course,  there  follows  from  the  internal 
life-action  of  this  great  organic  Catholic  Structure; 
•  *  The  communion  of  all  the  saints ' '  within  It.  Further- 
more, as  death  is  only  by  sin,  there  follows  from  the 
cure  of  sin  the  cure  of  death.  The  Creed's  next  arti- 
cle is,  therefore,  "  /  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead''  What,  finally,  is  the  end  and  purport  of  all 
this  flow  of  grace  and  life,  and  of  all  these  four  unifi- 
cations ?     What  is  the  final  result  of  aP  this  Integra- 


68        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Roma7itsm. 

ting,  organizing,  centralizing,  harmonizing  and  sus^ 
tain-ing  force  of  Catholic  life  as  it  goes  forth  from  God 
to  broken  humanity?  It  is  salvation.  Therefore  the 
Creed  rounds  out  and  completes  its  history  with  the 
final  statement,  ^^  And  the  life  everlasting  in  the  uorld  to 
come,  Amefir  Thus  is  the  Creed  a  consecutive  history 
of  Life  as  a  motion,  of  Life  as  a  redintegrator,  organiz- 
er, harmonizer  and  sustainer — of  Catholic  Life,  the  foe 
of  death,  with  which  the  race  was  struck  at  the  Fall. 

In  the  wonderful  land  of  the  West  there  are  two 
processes  going  on  simultaneously,  the  one  on  the 
lowlands,  the  other  on  the  uplands.  In  the  serene 
and  sunny  valleys  of  Sonoma  and  Suisun,  of  Santa 
Clara,  Los  Angeles  and  Sacramento,  those  paradises 
on  earth,  the  vine  dresser,  the  florist  and  the  agricul- 
turist ply  their  peaceful,  kindly  crafts  :  healing  all 
abrasions  in  the  soil,  terracing  rugged  slopes,  gather- 
ing out  unsightly  stones,  and  covering  everywhere  with 
verdure  and  billowy  beauty.  But  high  up  on  the 
sides  of  the  Sierra  there  is  a  different  work  and  a  dif- 
ferent scene.  There,  it  is  the  miner  that  has  left  his 
record.  With  his  sluice-heads  and  the  tremendous  im- 
pact of  their  out-bounding  water-spouts  he  has  turned 
up  the  mountain  sides  for  miles ;  turf  and  flower  and 
rounded  mound  fly  to  pieces  before  him ;  he   strips 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  69 

away  the  soil  from  the  land  j  he  turns  the  streams 
from  their  own  sweet  ways  of  mystery ;  he  disem- 
bowels the  hills  ;  he  decomposes  them,  throwing  up 
great  mounds  of  boulders,  and  spreading  wide  ex- 
panses of  sand  in  his  exploiture  of  the  gold.  And 
he  has  left  behind  him,  wherever  he  has  trodden,  one 
vast,  broken,  verdureless  scene  of  desolation  and 
death,  which  it  will  take  kindly  nature  centuries  to 
heal,  to  cure  and  to  cover.  One  cannot  help  standing 
in  admiration  before  this  daring  and  this  power  of 
our  human  nature.  Its  work  on  the  slopes  of  the 
Sierra  is,  indeed,  a  mighty  work.  But,  gentlemen,  it 
is  a  ghastly  work. 

The  instinct  of  Protestantism  is  the  instinct,  alas, 
of  disruption,  disintegration  and  death.  Leaping  up- 
on Jesus  Christ,  it  hath  rent  His  Body  Mystical,  the 
Church,  apart  from  His  Body  Natural  of  Palestine, 
and  sent  Him,  with  His  Body  Natural,  into  a  far-away 
astronomic  heaven.  Leaping,  then,  upon  the  Body 
Mystical,  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  on  earth, 
it  hath  disconnected  Its  outward  and  visible  from  Its 
inward  part ;  and,  while  it  lauds  its  disembodied 
"  Church  invisible  and  spiritual,"  buries  the  dead  visi- 
ble part  as  some  offensive  thing,  fit  only  to  be  put  out 
of  sight.     Leaping  upon  Christendom,  it  lacerates  u 


7©        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

into  numerous  fighting  sects,  and,  alas,  glories  in  its 
disorganizing  work,  as  producing  a  beautiful  and  ac- 
tively writhing  variety.  Leaping  upon  the  rounded 
perfect  number  of  the  seven  Sacraments,  it  slays  five 
outright ;  and,  instantly  springing  upon  each  of  the 
other  two,  it  tears  its  soul  from  its  body;  Baptism  is 
left  without  the  divine  regenerating  force  of  life,  the 
Eucharist  is  despoiled  of  its  tremendous,  adorable 
PYeight,  and  is  left  a  mere  natural  and  lifeless  piece 
of  bread  and  a  memory  of  the  natural  man.  Leaping 
upon  man  as  an  immortal  being,  it  disjoins  body  from 
soul,  and,  ignoring  the  former,  appeals  only  to  the 
latter  with,  "Save  your  soul;  oh,  save  your  soul." 
But,  O  Jesus,  Thou  didst  tell  us  to  fear  him  who  is 
able  to  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in  hell.  Leaping 
upon  man  as  a  worshiping  being,  it  sunders  body  from 
soul,  and  forbids  the  worship  of  the  body — no  fasting, 
no  reverent  bending  of  the  head  on  entering  God's 
presence  in  God's  House,  or  at  the  Sacred  Names,  as 
little  kneeling  and  as  little  standing  as  possible.  But, 
O  Jesus,  Thou  hast  taught  us  that  the  body  is  a  crea- 
ture of  God  as  well  as  the  soul ;  and  Thou  hast  taught 
us  to  worship  the  Lord  our  God  ;  and  to  pray  that 
"  both  our  hearts  and  bodies  may  be  directed,  sancti- 
fied, and  governed  in  the  ways  of  this  Thy  law,  and  in 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  71 

the  works  of  this  Thy  commandment."  O  Jesus, 
rhou  hast  taught  us,  too,  that  we  are  to  worship  Thee 
in  spirit  and  in  truth.  And  how  can  we  worship  Thee 
in  truth  if  our  body  play  not  with  our  spirit  in  its 
changing  moods  of  glorious  praise,  of  lowly  humility 
and  of  reverent  adoration  ;  how  can  we  worship  Thee 
in  truth  if  our  body  belie  the  moods  of  the  spirit  1  O 
Jesus,  Thou  hast  taught  us,  too,  that  our  body  ii 
grafted  into  Thine ;  that  it  is  precious  to  Thee,  too, 
as  it  is  to  the  very  instincts  Thou  hast  planted  in  us  ; 
and  that  Thou  wilt  rescue  it  from  death.  And  Thou 
hast  taught  us  to  pray,  ^*  that,  through  Thy  most  mighty 
protection,  we  may  be  preserved  both  here  and  ever  in 
body  and  in  soul."  Nay,  cries  Protestantism,  we  have 
decomposed  the  man,  and  the  body  is  dead  as  a  wor 
shiper.  Not  satisfied  with  slaying  the  Body  Mystical, 
it  has  cut  the  Church  asunder,  not  only  longitudi- 
nally, but  also  transversely.  For  it  has  sundered 
Church  Militant  here  from  Church  Expectant  and 
Triumphant  there,  hurling  the  beloved  departed  so 
far  away,  that  the  gulf  between  the  living  and  the 
dead  is  bridgeless,  that  all  communication  is  gone, 
and  that  neither  can  give  the  other  the  charity  of  its 
prayers.  O  God  upon  Thy  Throne,  must  not  even 
Thine  heart  have  been  filled  with  amazement  as,  to 


72        Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

Thy  listening  ear,  the  voice  of  Thy  needy  children's 
prayers  for  each  other  died  away  into  silence  !  It 
decomposes  the  organic  Christian  Creed,  and  holds 
out  in  its  hand  the  poor  disjecta  membra  of  the  once 
fair  flower,  that  the  world  may  admire  its  death.  It 
lays  hands  on  the  ancient  Apostolic  three-fold  Minis- 
try, slays  the  Bishop  and  the  Deacon,  and,  at  last,  leaves 
the  world  without  even  a  Priest. 

While  the  Anglican  rubrics,  as  all  other  Catholic 
rubrics,  speak  of  but  one  Priest,  of  but  one  Celebrant 
at  each  Eucharist,  and  of  but  one  Officiant  at  each 
Morning  or  Evening  Prayer,  thereby  symbolizing  the 
truth  that  there  is  but  one  great  Priest,  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  it  is  heresy  to  divide  Him  (one  Celebrant,  I 
say,  who  may  be  assisted,  indeed,  in  epistle  and  gos- 
pel, and  one  Officiant,  who  may  be  assisted  in  the 
Lessons),  it  has  with  its  disruptive  force,  as  the  foe  of 
unity,  invaded  our  own  Church,  and  sundered  the 
Officiant's  and  the  Celebrant's  part  of  the  service  into 
halves,  or  into  more  numerous  fragments  still,  and  has 
parceled  them  out  to  various  Officiants,  breaking  up 
even  this  symbol  of  the  Oneness  of  Christ.  While 
the  rubrics  say  the  services  shall  be  musically  ren- 
dered, thus  securing  the  unity  of  the  worship  as  a 
symbol  of  the  unity  of  the  parish  and  of  the  Church 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  73 

which  worships  with  one  voice,  it  has,  with  its  instinct 
of  disruption,  gone  down  into  our  congregations,  disin- 
tegrated this  mode  of  unison  in  rendering  the  service, 
and  separated  it  into  a  broken  mumble  of  voices. 

With  boisterous  might  it  has  divided  religion  from 
aesthetics,  and  has  then  proceeded  to  deprave  archi- 
tecture and  to  trample  ecclesiastical  fine  arts  under 
its  feet.  It  has  debased  manners,  until  the  "gentle- 
man of  the  old  school  "  is  a  phrase  descriptive  of  a  cul- 
ture and  a  suavity  that  are  well-nigh  gone.  It  has 
gone  down  beneath  with  its  besom  to  sweep  hell 
away  ;  nay,  in  its  Unitarian  form,  it  has  even  mounted 
to  the  Throne  of  God  Himself,  and  has  there  disin- 
tegrated and  separated  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
from  each  other,  slain  the  Holy  Ghost,  destroyed  the 
Son,  and  left  the  Father  without  a  Son,  sterile  and 
alone  upon  His  throne. 

Behold,  then,  gentlemen,  Catholicity,  a  Life  issuing 
from  God  ;  an  organizing,  centralizing,  harmonizing, 
constructive  and  beautifying  Force !  And  behold, 
too.  Protestantism,  the  mother  of  uncomeliness,  a  dis- 
organizing, decentralizing,  disruptive  and  destroying 
power !  One  cannot  but  admire  its  mighf  and  its 
daring.  Its  work  on  the  slopes  of  time  is  indeed  a 
mighty  work.  But,  gentlemen,  it  is  a  ghastly  work. 
4 


THIRD     CONFERENCE. 

Catholic  Church,  Perfect  and  Imperfect.  Leaves 
Room  for  Play  of  Mental  Activity.  Catholicity  the 
"Yea"  of  Christianity;  Protestantism  the  "Nay." 
True  Cause  of  Protestant  Reformation.  Protest- 
antism, Diversity  without  Unity  ;  Rome,  Unity 
without  Diversity  ;  Catholicity,  Unity  in  Diversity. 

Certain  attacks  having  been  made  by  the  pulpit 
and  the  press  upon  the  author  of  these  Conferences, 
subsequently  to  the  delivery  of  the  First  and  of  the 
Second,  he  stepped  out  in  front  of  the  rostrum,  and 
made  the  following  remarks  before  beginning  the  Third 
Conference,  viz.: 

I  have  come  up  to  the  consideration  of  this  topic 
not  to  attack  a  single  human  being  living.  I  am,  on 
the  other  hand,  criticising  a  system.  The  whole 
issue  is  too  solemn,  too  lofty,  too  vital  in  itself  for 
either  side  so  far  to  forget  itself  as  to  lose  temper.  I 
am  attacking  not  Protestants,  for  I  have  many  re- 
spected and  many  dearly  loved  friends  and  near  rela- 
tives who  are  Protestants ;  but  I  am  attacking  Pro- 
tesiantism.  I  am  attacking  not  Roman  Catholics,  for 
I  have  loved  and  respected  friends  who  are  Roman 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  75 

Catlkolics ;  but  I  am  attacking  Roman/m.  I  speak, 
gentlemen,  not  at  my  own  motion,  but  in  obedience  to 
your  call.  Hitherto,  abstracts  only  of  these  Confer- 
ences have  appeared  in  the  secular  press.  Indeed  who 
could  expect  that  any  daily  paper  could  find  space,  in 
this  busy  age,  for  six  long  addresses,  each  four  solid 
columns  in  length  ?  But  it  results  as  a  fact,  that  the 
public  outside  of  this  building  cannot  adequately  as- 
certain the  ideas  of  this  counter- Reformation.  Before 
me  indeed  is  a  great  sea  of  heads  ;  but  you,  gentle- 
men, are  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  vast  public. 
They  cannot  comprehend  what  it  is  that  has  banded 
together  the  17,400  of  the  nobility,  gentry  and  clergy 
of  the  "English  Church  Union,"  the  12,000  of  the 
''  Church  of  England  Workingmen's  Defense  Associa- 
tion," the  14,000  members  of  the  "  Confraternity  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,"  nor  the  thousands  that  signed 
the  late  monster  petition  to  the  authorities  in  England. 
And  certainly  the  position  of  the  Catholic  school  of 
thought  cannot  properly,  nor  indeed  at  all  adequately, 
be  answered,  unless  it  is  comprehended. 

The  Tribune^  day  before  yesterda)',  very  naturally, 
therefore,  fell  into  the  mistake  of  speaking  of  this 
great  movement,  which  began  more  than  a  half  century 
ago,  as  a  retreat  toward  the  Roman  Church  ;  and  Mr 


76        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Beecher,  in  his  two  sermons  on  Sunday  last,  virtually 
gave  the  same  impression.  All  this  shows  how  radi- 
cally the  movement  is  misunderstood. 

In  a  brief  word,  then,  Catholics  claim  that  Prot- 
estantism has  failed  as  a  preservative  of  Christianity 
on  earth.  The  two  main  counts  in  the  indictment 
presented  ten  years  ago  against  Protestantism  were, 
that  if  its  premises  were  true,  its  logical  conclusion 
was  not  Christianit)'  but  infidelity  ;  that  Theodore 
Parker  and  Frothingham  were  the  legitimate  brain- 
children of  John  Calvin  and  Martin  Luther ;  and  that 
it  is  impossible  for  any  of  the  Trinitarian  Protestant 
sects  to  answer  Parker's  and  Frothingham's  arguments. 
It  seems  amazing  to  me,  that  it  should  have  become 
necessary  to  reiterate  this.  I  thought  I  had  stated  it 
distinctly  enough,  even  for  prejudice  to  understand  it. 
Secondly,  that  what  ought  thus  logically  to  happen 
after  three  hundred  years  of  Calvinism  and  Lutheran- 
ism,  has  happened  historically — namely,  that  while 
Protestantism  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago  held 
great  thoughtful  peoples,  it  has  failed  to  retain  its  hold 
on  those  peoples ;  that  with  rare  exceptions  it  has  to- 
day lost  both  their  intellect  and  their  masses.  Ten 
years  ago,  with  all  that  was  said  in  pulpit  and  press, 
these  two  counts  in  the  indictment  were  in  no  one 


Catholicity  a?td  Protestantism.  77 

case  met  and  answered.  But  ten  years  have  begun  to 
work  a  change.  Robert  Dale  Owen,  in  his  calmly 
written  Introduction  to  "  The  Debatable  Land,"  ad- 
mits them,  and  says  the  time  is  passed  for  the  Prot- 
estant ministers  to  close  their  eyes  to  the  facts.  Mr. 
Beecher  last  Sunday  admits,  and  even  more  fully  than 
your  speaker  had  ever  charged,  that  it  is  indeed  true, 
that  lands  once  believing  the  Protestant  presentment 
of  Christianity  are  to-day  honey-combed  with  atheism, 
pantheism  and  infidelity  generally.  He  says  that 
skepticism  is  wide-spread  in  the  pews  even  of  the  very 
Protestant  churches  themselves ;  that  a  photograph 
of  what  is  going  on  in  the  brains  of  the  people  as  the 
preachers  preach  would  be  curious  ;  that  sober-faced, 
thoughtful  gentlemen  sit  in  the  pews,  and  listen,  and 
say  in  reply  in  their  minds,  "*  Maybe-Maybe,'  which 
means  *  No.' " 

Ah,  then,  it  is  beginning  to  be  admitted  at  last 
that  Protestantism  is  effete.  To  say  nothing  of 
Noah's  ark  against  which,  by  the  way,  the  stubborn 
multitudes,  who  were  shortly  after  drowned,  protested 
most  vigorously,  T  am  afraid  Mr.  Beecher  is  about  as 
wise  in  remaining  in  Protestantism,  as  I  should  be  if 
I  insisted  on  sailing  to  Albany  in  a  sloop,  or  going  to 
Boston  in  a  stage-coach,  instead  of  using  the  railroad 


jS        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

or  steamboat.  Mr.  Beecher's  entire  sermon  condenses 
d^wn  to  the  following  statement :  "  Yes,  Protestantism 
has  destroyed  Christian  belief  and  created  infidels, 
pantheists  and  atheists  by  the  thousands.  And,  isn't 
it  glorious  !  "  Mr.  Beecher,  Mr.  Beecher,  you  shouldn't 
joke  in  the  pulpit. 

Now,  this  counter- Re  formation  of  ours  goes  on  to 
say,  "  Yes,  and  Romanism  is  a  failure,  too  ;  the  six- 
teenth century  burst  that  bubble  ;  and  to-day  Roman 
lands  also  are  honey-combed  with  infidelity." 

Is  Christianity  a  failure,  then  ?  Why,  it  would  be, 
were  there  no  other  presentment  of  Christianity  than 
the  Roman  and  the  Protestant  presentments.  But 
there  is  a  third  presentment,  radically  difierent  both 
from  the  Roman  and  from  the  Protestant.  And  this 
third  presentment  is  "  Catholicity ;"  an  explanation 
of  which  you,  gentlemen,  have  asked  for  in  these  Con- 
ferences. Eighteen  hundred  years  ago  this  Catholic 
presentment  of  Christianity  went  forth  into  Europe, 
and,  in  less  than  four  centuries,  captured  not  only  the 
thinkers  but  also  the  masses  of  Europe.  But  in  the 
middle  ages  Romanism  arose  as  a  poisoned  present- 
ment of  Christianity  ;  and  afterward,  in  the  Sixteenth 
Century,  Protestantism  came  on  as  another  poisoned 
presentment  of  Christianity.     And  it  is  because  they 


Catholicity  a?td  Froiesta7itism.  79 

are  both  of  them  poisoned  presentments  that  the 
thinking  world  has  virtually  rejected  both.  Very  well, 
what  is  he  cure  for  all  this?  Surely  Catholics  were 
grossly  illogical  to  say,  as  Mr.  Beecher  thinks  we  say, 
"  Cure  one  failure  by  going  back  to  something  that 
had  previously  failed." 

Nay,  say  we,  if  Protestantism  and  Romanism  have 
both  failed,  let  us  have  the  Catholic  Christianity  once 
more  ;  if  it  be  tried  for  a  century  or  two,  it  can  do 
again  what  it  has  already  done;  it  can  regain  to 
Christianity  what  Protestantism  and  Romanism  be- 
tween them  have  lost.  A  country  enjoys  the  blessings 
of  a  constitutional  government  for  six  or  seven  hun- 
dred years.  It  subsequently  suffers  the  evils  of  a  more 
and  more  absolute  monarchy  for  a  thousand  years. 
Revolt  finally  supervenes,  and  it  suffers  the  evils  of 
anarchy  for  three  hundred  years  j  when  at  last  men 
arise  declaring  that  they  have  had  enough  both  of 
tyranny  and  of  anarchy,  and  demand  the  constitutional 
government  again.  Mr.  Beecher  calls  this  going  back 
to  Noah's  Ark  ;  he  prefers  the  anarchy. 

In  the  great  world  to-day  Early  Church  and  Catho- 
lic Christianity  is  a  still  small  voice,  it  is  true.  But 
now  that  Romanism  has  filled  the  world  with  its  great 
strong  wind   and  its   fire   for   700   years,  and    Prot- 


So       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

estantism  with    its  earthquakes  for   325   years,   pos- 
sibly the  world  will  listen  to  something  that  is  not  in 
the  wind,  and  not  in  the  fire,  and  not  in  the  earth 
quake. 


Gentlemen  : 

In  our  First  Conference  we  found  Catholicity 
to  be  a  Continent  of  Certainty,  and  Protestantism 
an  Ocean  of  Conjecture.  In  our  Second,  we  found 
Catholicity  to  be  a  Life  and  an  Organizer  and  Prot- 
estantism a  Disorganizer  and  a  Death.  In  taking 
up  for  the  last  time  the  subject  of  Catholicity  in 
its  Relationship  to  Protestantism,  let  me  say  that 
I  listen  with  respect  to  an  objection  which  I  am  sure 
has  arisen  in  your  minds  since  last  we  met,  and  which 
I  should  have  treated  at  the  close  of  the  last  Confer- 
ence, had  I  not  feared  exhausting  your  patience  by 
detaining  you  too  long. 

If  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  Body  of  God  Who 
is  still  on  earth,  how  is  it,  you  will  ask,  that  It  exhibits 
so  many  infirmities,  not  only  in  the  life,  but  also  in 
the  religious  opinions  of  Its  members  touching  points 
lying  outside  of  the  Creed  ? 

All  God's  great  works  are  composite  and  intricate. 
And  the  answer  to  this  question  will  advance  our  con- 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  8 1 

caption  of  the  Church  ;  for,  as  I  understand  the  subject 
you  have  assigned  to  me,  it  is  primarily  "Catho- 
licity;" and  secondarily  "  Its  Relationship,  first,  to 
Protestantism,  and  secondly  to  Romanism." 

In  the  first  place,  then,  it  is  with  the  Church — it 
is,  that  is  to  say,  with  the  God-man  on  earth  in  the 
centuries,  as  it  was  with  the  God-man  in  Palestine. 
In  His  Divine  element  He  was  perfect,  indefectable 
and  infinite.  But  in  His  human  element  He  was 
finite  ;  He  grew  in  stature  and  in  wisdom  ;  was  often 
wearied,  soiled  and  hungry  ;  "  His  visage  so  marred 
more  than  any  man  that  many  were  astonied  at 
Him;"  His  poor  frame  stretched  at  last  and  out  of 
joint  upon  the  Cross,  bruised  and  swollen  with  lash- 
ings, thorn-pierced,  spear-pierced  and  dead. 

Furthermore,  it  is  with  the  Church  as  it  is  with 
the  Bible.  The  Bible  contains  not  only  a  Divine 
element,  but  also  human  elements  ;  the  Bible  is  there- 
fore both  infinite  and  finite,  both  perfect  and  imper- 
fect. Parts  of  It  are  written  in  imperfect  Greek ;  Its 
style  is  sometimes  involved;  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Laodiceans  is  gone  from  It;  passages  are  in  It  which 
all  agree  should  be  out  of  It;  one-half  of  the  Chris- 
tian world — more  than  one-half  of  the  Catholic  world 
even — hold  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  St.  James' 
4* 


82        Catholicity^  Protestantism  a7id  Romanism, 

Epistle,  St.  Jude's,  the  Second  and  Third  of  St.  John, 
the  Second  of  St.  Peter,  the  verses  from  the  9th  to  the 
20th  in  the  xvith  chapter  of  St.  Mark,  the  statement 
concerning  the  bloody  sweat  in  St.  Luke,  and  other 
passages  here  and  there,  are  not  fully  canonical.  The 
majority  of  quotations  in  the  New  Testament  vary 
from  the  Old  Testament  text.  In  St.  Mark,  the  Mag- 
dalen came  to  the  sepulchre  at  the  rising  of  the  sun  ; 
but,  according  to  St.  John,  it  was  still  dark  when  she 
came  and  found  the  tomb  empty.  In  short,  the  Bible 
goes  down  through  the  ages  bearing  the  Divine  ele- 
ment unharmed  within  It,  but  showing  at  the  same 
lime  the  unsightly  bruises  and  the  dark  stains  of  Its 
human  elements  with  which  the  Divine  is  inseparably 
bound  up.  The  Bible  has  925,877  words ;  and  yet 
while  that  band  of  words  is  organized  into  the  one, 
perfect,  outward  body  expressive  of  the  infallible 
message  of  heaven,  each  word,  in  itself  considered,  is 
a  poor  finite  word,  and  each  sentence,  in  itself  con 
sidered,  is  liable  to  imperfections  and  fallibility. 

So  also  the  Church  is  at  the  same  time  infinite 
and  finite,  divine  and  human.  Infinite  and  infallible 
because  It  is  as  a  whole  the  one  organic  Body  of  God, 
expressing  perfectly  His  truth  and  conveying  perfectly 
His  graces ;  finite,  because  that  Body  is  made  up  o' 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  83 

human  atoms,  each  of  which,  individually  considered, 
is  fallible  and  progressive,  and  of  provinces  and  great 
Communions,  each  of  which,  in  itself  considered,  is 
liable  to  imperfections  and  error.  The  whole  Angli- 
can Church  together,  therefore,  is  fallible  ;  the  whole 
Roman  Church  is  fallible  ;  the  whole  Greek  Church  is 
fallible.  The  whole  body  of  bishops  is  in  itself  alone 
a  fallible  body.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  God 
did  not  promise  to  be  with  any  part  of  His  Churcl^, 
however  large  or  small,  to  preserve  that  part  from 
error  when  acting  independently  of  the  rest  as  a  de- 
finer  of  new  truth.  No,  He  only  promised  to  be  with 
His  whole  Church  and  guide  It  into  truth  when  It 
acted  together  as  a  definer  of  new  truth.  However, 
more  of  this  when  we  come  to  Romanism. 

Furthermore,  with  regard  to  these  infirmities  in 
the  Church.  Man  is  often  compelled  to  combine 
many  means  to  produce  one  end  \  but  God  not  seldom 
brings  out  one  single  means  to  accomplish  many  dif- 
ferent ends.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  if  God 
is  on  earth  en  rapport  with  us,  He  is  here  not  for  a 
single  purpose,  but  for  a  two-fold  purpose — to  meet 
our  two-fold  necessities  :  namely,  not  only  to  speak  to 
us  all  infallibly,  but  also  to  cure  each  of  us  individu- 
ally.    The  Catholic  Church  is,  therefore,  under  one 


84       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

aspect,  the  Body  of  God  speaking  the  perfect  truth 
and  imparting  grace ;  but  It  is  also,  under  another 
aspect,  the  human  race  convalescing.  And  that  theie 
should  be  pains  during  convalescence  is  not  surpris- 
ing, nay,  it  is  inevitable. 

A  word  or  two  more  touching  differences  of 
opinion  in  the  Church  on  points  lying  outside  of  the 
Creed  and  of  those  verities  mentioned  in  the  last 
Conference.  Suppose  God,  having  defined  through 
the  Church,  the  essentials  of  truth,  should  go  on  con- 
stantly defining  new  truth  on  subordinate  points  as 
they  arise.  Should  He  thus  do  everything  for  the 
individual,  should  He  define  all  religious  truth  infalli- 
bly, the  individual  would  relapse  mentally  into  leaden 
inertness  in  the  matter  of  theology.  Christ,  therefore, 
neither  does  nothing,  nor  yet  does  He  do  all.  But 
while  helping  the  individual  where  otherwise  he  would 
be  left  helpless,  He  leaves  to  each  a  necessity  for 
action — mental  action  as  well  as  moral  action.  This 
is  one  of  our  necessities,  and  is  attended  to  simulta- 
neously with  His  other  works  in  the  Church.  How  is 
it  accomplished  ?  Why,  outside  of  the  Creed  and  the 
verities  mentioned  in  the  last  Conference,  outside,  that 
is  to  say,  of  the  fundamentals  of  truth,  outside  of  the 
essentials  of  salvation,  Christ  leaves  in  the  Church  a 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  85 

region  where  mental  activity  can  reverently  play,  where 
each  can  reason  on  those  non-essentials,  which  are 
yet  not  without  their  importance,  where  each  can  in- 
vestigate, form  theories  and  discuss.  The  essentials 
being  fixed,  no  eternal  harm  follows  from  temporary 
differences  on  other  matters. 

But  at  the  same  time  we  are  all  in  one  Body,  we 
are  all  in  one  System,  in  the  centre  of  which  stands, 
as  a  sun,  the  Creed  with  the  essentials  of  truth.  And 
that  sun  of  truth  exerts  throughout  the  system  a  cen- 
tralizing force  of  gravity,  which  is  felt  by  all  the  erratic 
and  conflicting  theories  and  reasonings  that  are  within 
the  system,  which  restrains  them  from  developing  and 
straying  to  lengths  that  would  be  finally  disastrous, 
and  which,  in  the  long  run,  draws  them  all  into  suffi- 
ciently harmonious  revolutions  about  itself.  Thus 
Catholicity  is  a  system  which  holds  all  up  to  God, 
holds  all  up  to  The  Life,  holds  all  up  to  The  Truth. 
While  it  is,  therefore,  the  great  benign,  unifying  force, 
it  does  not  at  the  same  time  crush  the  individuality 
out  of  any  man.  For  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  if 
the  Body  Mystical,  the  Church,  is  a  creature  of  God 
and  therefore  sacred,  so,  too,  is  each  separate  indi- 
vidual a  creature  of  God  and  therefore  sacred. 
Neither   of  these   sacred  creatures  must   crush   the 


36     '  Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

other.  If  the  Church  crushes  the  individual,  oi  the 
individual  the  Church,  it  is  murder.  If  the  Church 
allows  itself  to  be  crushed  by  the  individual,  or  the 
individual  allows  himself  to  be  crushed  by  the  Church, 
it  is  suicide.  In  Romanism  the  Church  crushes  the 
individual.  In  Protestantism  the  individual  kills  the 
Church.  He  who  perverts  from  Catholicity  to  Ro- 
manism commits  the  sin  of.suicide.  He  lays  himself 
beneath  the  wheels  of  the  car  of  its  Juggernaut. 

Now,  cut  off  by  self-action  from  this  grand,  unify- 
ing Catholic  system.  Protestantism  is  left  to  fly  away 
from  the  "  Yea  "  of  Christianity  into  a  condition  of 
perpetual  and  uncontrolled  fluctuation  and  instability 
touching  even  the  very  essentials  of  truth  themselves  ; 
and  finally  to  drop  off  into  the  utter  darkness  and 
nothingness  of  the  "Nay"  of  Christianity;  "while 
the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  Who  is  preached  among 
you  by  us,"  His  Priests,  "  is  not  yea  and  nay,  but  in 
Him  is  only  yea." 

Thus  the  Church  hath  the  Divine  and  infallible 
element  of  truth  and  grace  bound  up  into  benignant 
oneness  with  the  fallible  and  progressive  elements  of 
humanity  ;  and,  like  the  Bible,  displays  sad  evidences 
of  its  human  elements  as  well  as  glad  evidences  of  its 
Divine. 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  87 

We  have  only  this  Conference  in  which  further  to 
treat  Catholicity  in  its  relationship  with  Protestantism. 
Permit  me,  then,  to  present  very  briefly  a  third  aspect 
of  the  two. 

Before  Jesus  Christ  came,  as  the  human  race  had 
gone  into  fragments  through  the  fall,  so  Truth  itself 
was  also  in  fragments.  There  were  glittering  shards 
of  Truth  in  all  the  ancient  false  philosophies,  in  the 
Kings  of  China,  the  Vedas  of  India,  the  Zend-Avesta 
of  the  Persians,  and  in  every  cultus  of  ancient  Pagan- 
ism. Catholicity,  coming  with  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
centre  of  time,  was  the  restorer  of  Truth  as  well  as  of 
man.  It  was  the  gathering  up  and  harmonious  con- 
centration of  all  those  verities  that  were  dispersed  in 
previous  modes  of  worship.  It  was  the  cleanser  of 
them  all.  It  was  the  supplier  of  the  parts  that  were 
lost ;  and  it  was  the  restorer  to  the  world  of  the 
rounded  sphere  of  Truth  in  all  its  integrity. 

But,  sixteen  hundred  years  afterward.  Protestant- 
ism came  to  smite  the  rounded  truth,  and  to  disperse 
its  fragments  broadcast  once  more.  I  cannot  refrain 
tiere  from  quoting,  with  slight  variations,  a  striking 
paragraph  of  the  Count  de  Maistre's  :  '*  Consider,"  he 
says,  "  the  Catholic  Truth  as  an  assemblage  of  posi- 
tive dogmas ;  the  unity  of  God,  the  Trinity,  the  I  near- 


88        Catholicity^  Protestantism  a?td  Romanism. 

nation,  the  Real  Presence,  etc.  The  sixteenth-century 
sects  denied  one  and  another  and  another  of  these 
dogmas.  But  those  dogmas  which  they  retained  are 
common  to  Catholicity.  So  that  Catholicity  includes 
all  that  the  sects  believe — this  is  incontestible.  The 
sects,  be  they  what  they  may,  are  not  religions ,  they 
are  negations ;  that  is  to  say,  they  are  nothing  in  them- 
selves;  for  directly  they  affirm  anything  they  are 
Catholic." 

And  Mr.  Baring-Gould,  in  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able books  of  the  century,  "  The  Origin  and  Develop 
ment  of  Christianity,"  admirably  illustrates  the  same 
truth.  "Catholicity,"  he  says,  "proclaims  the  union 
of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ.  Arianism 
appeared,  and,  abandoning  more  or  less  completely 
the  first  of  these  two  terms,  reproduced  the  second 
alone.  What  did  Arianism  affirm  ?  The  humanity  of 
Christ.  Catholicity  equally  affirms  this  ;  it  believes 
all  that  Arianism  believed.  What  did  Arianism  add 
to  that  article  of  faith  ?  A  negation  of  the  first  term, 
i.  e.,  nothing.  Catholicity  proclaims  the  co-existence 
of  grace  and  free-will — that  is  to  say,  of  divine  and 
human  action.  Pelagianism  started  up  and  left  on 
one  side  the  first  of  these  terms  and  reproduced  the 
second  alone.     What  did  it  affirm  ?    The  existence 


Catholicity  atid  Protestantism.  89 

of  human  liberty.  Catholicity  had  affirmed  it  long 
before  and  believed  in  all  that  Pelagianism  held. 
What,  then,  did  Pelagianism  add  to  this  article  of 
belief?  A  negation  of  the  first  term,  /.  e.,  nothing. 
Catholicity  proclaims  the  double  necessity  of  faith  and 
good  works.  Luther  arose,  and  omitting  the  second 
of  these  two  points,  asserted  the  former  only.  What 
did  he  affirm  ?  The  necessity  of  faith.  Catholicity 
had  insisted  on  this  with  unchanging  voice.  What 
did  Luther  add  ?  A  negation  of  the  second  point,  /.  ^., 
nothing.  Finally,  Catholicity  proclaims  the  Sacra- 
ments, the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  the  Real  Presence, 
etc.  Protestants  reject  these  ;  in  other  terms,  they 
substitute  for  them  simple  negations,  which  are  noth- 
ing. As  every  heretical  or  schismatical  sect  retains 
this  or  that  verity  which  suits  it,  to  the  exclusion  of 
other  truths,  and  as  this  process  takes  place  from  a 
thousand  different  points  of  view,  it  is  sufficient  to 
add  together  the  articles  separately  admitted  by  these 
communions,  mutually  antagonistic,  to  arrive  at  the 
sum  of  all  Catholic  verities.  Also,  it  is  sufficient  to 
strike  out  the  points  which  each  rejects,  or  to  sub- 
tract them  from  the  total,  to  arrive  at  zero,  and  thus 
to  show  that  there  is  no  phase  of  truth  which  they  do 
not  deny.     In  the  first  case  they  conclude  directly  for 


90        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Catholicity,  which  is  the  entirety  of  which  they  are 
the  fragments  ;  in  the  second,  they  conclude  indi- 
rectly, by  showing  that  outside  of  Catholicity  is  noth- 
ing but  a  process  of  disintegration  of  all  belief." 

But  as  you  stand  in  presence  of  the  amazing  de- 
struction of  the  sixteenth  century,  I  hear  you  musing 
within  yourselves  and  saying,  "  Surely  vast  results 
cannot  come  from  trifling  causes ;  and  was  there  not 
a  reason  for  Protestantism  ? " 

Certainly,  gentlemen,  there  were  mediaeval  abuses. 
The  Goths  and  Vandals  had  swarmed  the  decks  and 
interior  of  the  Catholic  ship  as  she  sailed  down  time, 
and  brought  their  unseemly  things  with  them ;  but 
how  could  this  be  reason  for  burning  and  sinking  the 
ship  ?  If  God  makes  the  human  eye,  and  inflamma- 
tion gets  into  that  eye,  is  that  a  reason  for  dashing 
out  the  eye  itself  from  the  head  ?  There  was,  indeed, 
cause  for  Reformation.  But  a  cause  for  Reformation 
is  not  a  cause  for  destruction.  To  cleanse  a  palace 
by  burning  it  down  and  tearing  up  the  very  stones  of 
its  foundation  were,  surely,  the  wjrk  of  folly  and  of 
madness.  Destruction  is  a  soriy  s-ynonym  for  reforma- 
tion. The  Anglican  movement  was  a  Reformation  j 
the  Protestant  movement  was  a  wide-spread  destruc- 
tion.     In  England  Catholicity  was  cleansed  of  its 


Catholicity  a?td  Protestantism.  91 

impurities  and  is  saved.  On  the  Continent  Catho- 
licity was  destroyed  and  lost.  Ah  !  gentlemen,  if 
philosophy  would  really  account  for  that  torch  of  the 
incendiary  and  knife  of  the  assassin  that  wrought  such 
havoc  in  Germany,  Switzerland  and  Scandinavia  with 
the  true  Catholic  dogma,  practice  and  life,  it  must 
look  deeper  than  into  mediaeval  abuses.  And  what 
is  deeper,  gentlemen,  than  the  human  heart  itself.-* 
What,  since  the  first  resistance  of  Adam  and  the  fall 
of  man,  hath  more  mysterious  chambers?  Within  it, 
deep-seated,  there  is,  alas !  a  basilisk ;  and  that 
monster  is  ever  ready  to  rouse  himself  and  resist  the 
principle  of  submission  to  Divine  authority  in  matters 
of  Faith.  It  was  not  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  alone 
that  this  basilisk  was  in  the  human  heart.  For,  the 
spirit  of  resistance  to  Divine  authority  has  manifested 
itself  more  or  less  in  all  centuries  since  the  fall.  But 
the  Sixteenth  Century  was  exceptional  in  another 
respect ;  for  it  stood  at  the  close  of  a  long  turmoil. 
It  was  a  vast  crisis.  Every  great  war  is  always  fol- 
lowed, like  every  great  tempest,  by  a  ground-swell, 
which  heaves  up  from  the  bottom  of  human  nature, 
and  rouses  into  action,  whatsoever  is  of  evil  report. 
And  the  thirteen  hundred  long  years  of  continual 
turmoil  and  war,  in  which  the  ancient  polities  and 


92       Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

civilizations,  after  centuries  of  struggle,  went  down  in 
a  vast  shipwreck,  and  out  of  which  modern  Europe 
slovily  and  painfully  emerged,  were  followed  by  a  re- 
crudescence and  exacerbation  of  that  human  infirmity 
and  spirit  of  resistance  to  God,  which  appeared, 
after  the  fall,  in  the  unhappy  Lamech  and  the  de- 
fiant Cain. 

Indeed,  Erasmus  said  :  '^  I  know,  as  a  positive 
fact,  that  there  never  were  more  luxury  and  adultery 
than  among  the  Evangelicals,  as  they  please  to  call 
themselves. " 

George  Wizel,  in  his  letters,  says  :  "  When  I  saw 
the  evangelical  people  reject  and  ridicule  all  disci- 
pline, all  decent  living,  all  that  conduces  to  make  men 
better  and  truer  Christians,  and  that  my  sermons,  in- 
stead of  amending  hearts,  demoralized  them,  then  I 
began  seriously  to  doubt  this  doctrine.  My  doubts 
gained  strength  when  I  saw  the  debauchery,  the  hard- 
ness, the  avarice  and  pride  of  the  leaders,  their  end- 
less contradictions,  and  the  discreditable  turn  the 
enterprise  assumed  in  other  respects." 

John  Egranus  says :  "  Here  are  fine  results  I  His- 
tory is  open  to  demonstrate  to  us  that,  during  the 
eight  centuries  since  Germany  was  Christianized, 
there  has  not  been  in  the  land  a  perversity  equal  to 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  93 

thit  which,  as  every  one  acknowledges,  reigns  tri- 
umpliant  now." 

Luther  himself  said  that  for  "  one  devil  of  popery 
expelled,  seven  worse  devils  had  entered  into  his 
evangelicals."  And  yet  in  his  recklessness  he  prayed 
that  awful  prayer :  "  O  Lord  God  of  heaven,  may  we  be 
steeped  in  all  kinds  of  obscenities,  in  all  abominations 
of  sin,  rather  than  fall  back  into  the  blindness  of  Popery  \ 
and  deliver  us  from  even  a  spirit  of  compunction." 

Bucer  said  :  "  The  great  bulk  of  those  who  joined 
the  reform  proposed  to  themselves  the  following  ad- 
vantages :  freedom  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope  and 
the  Bishops  ;  that  being  done,  they  were  all  eager- 
ness to  give  themselves  up  freely  to  their  caprices  and 
to  all  their  carnal  passions.  And,  indeed,  it  is  to 
them  a  most  agreeable  thing  to  be  able  to  say,  '  We 
are  justified  by  faith  only  \  and  good  works,  for  which 
we  have  no  taste,  are  utterly  useless.'  Others  have 
favored  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  solely  because  it 
offered  them  the  means  of  appropriating  the  goods  of 
the  Church.  The  doctrine  of  the  reign  of  Jesus 
Christ  has  been  faithfully  announced  in  a  great  num- 
ber of  places,  I  own,  but  I  should  be  sore  puzzled  to 
name  a  single  church  where  it  is  practiced,  and  where 
Christian  discipline  is  to  be  found." 


94        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Ro?nanisfn. 

Luther  describes  the  state  of  things.  He  says : 
"  There  is  not  one  of  our  Evangelicals  who  is  not 
seven  times  worse  than  he  was  when  he  was  a  Roman- 
ist— stealing,  lying,  deceiving,  eating  and  getting  drunk, 
and  giving  himself  up  to  all  kinds  of  vices." 

Indeed,  the  statistics  of  crime  in  one  single  city 
show  this.  There  were  condemned  to  death  in  Nu- 
remberg for  incest,  highway  robbery,  murder,  infanti- 
cide, unnatural  crimes,  etc.,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
before  the  Reformation,  41  ;  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
after  the  Reformation,  190  ;  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury^ after  the  Reformation,  272. 

Luther  wrote  to  the  preacher  Riemann  :  "  All  the 
good  which  we  hoped  for  in  this  age  has  vanished  as  a 
dream ;  and  in  its  place  a  flood  of  evil  is  produced 
which  leaves  nothing  to  hope  but  the  dissolution  of  all 
things.  May  the  day  of  God's  wrath  speedily  come  to 
put  an  end  to  our  miseries  and  to  this  infernal  dis- 
order." Again  he  writes  :  "  For  the  price  of  the  whole 
world  I  would  not  have  to  begin  again.  This  enter- 
prise brings  such  agonies  with  it.  Oh,  dear  Sirs,  this 
is  no  child's  play  !  " 

If  such  was  the  case  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven 
teenth    centuries,  what   would    he   have   said  of  the 
French  Revolution  of  tlie  Protestants   in   the  eigh- 

/ 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  95 

teenth,  and  of  the  Commune  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
turies ? 

And  so  we  have,  gentlemen,  on  the  Continent  of 
Europe,  after  the  1,300  years  of  turmoil,  the  rousing 
of  the  Basilisk,  and,  as  a  consequence,  not  a  Reforma- 
tion, but  a  Deformation  and  a  hideous  destruction. 
Shall  we  be  stubborn  heirs  to  this  fearful  legacy? 
Shall  this  continue  forever  ? 

But,  notwithstanding  all  this,  the  natural  human 
heart  is  of  itself  so  much  better  than  the  Protestant 
system,  that  at  last  even  it  has  reacted,  and  has  risen, 
an  ally  to  Catholicity,  to  restore  to  some  considerable 
extent  common  morality. 

Permit  me  next  to  present  to  you,  in  condensed 
form,  a  fourth  aspect  of  Catholicity  and  Protestantism. 

As  we  go  up  the  scale  of  being,  we  pass  from  the 
simple  to  the  complex  ;  from  homogeneous  unities  to 
unities  each  of  which  contains  within  itself  variety.  The 
simple  unity  marks  a  low  and  imperfect  order  of  ex- 
istence. The  chick  is  more  complex  than  the  ^g^ ; 
the  seed,  with  its  radix  and  two  cotyledons,  is 
simpler  and  lower  in  the  scale  of  existence  than  the 
fully  developed  tree.  If  we  start  from  the  simple 
unitp  of  the  atom  and  go  up,  we  come  to  the  more 
complex  unity  of  the  stone.     We  pass  from   the  stone 


g6        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

up  to  the  plant,  and  find  there  more  diversity  still. 
We  pass  up  to  the  animal,  and  we  find  a  still  greater 
variety  in  the  unit ;  we  have  matter  and  instinct.  We 
go  up  to  man  only  to  strike  a  unit  comprehending 
more  variety  yet ;  for  we  have  in  him  body,  instinct,  in- 
tellect with  all  its  diversity,  the  moral  sense  and  immor- 
tality. And  so  on  up  to  God,  in  Whom  is  the  complexity, 
incomprehensible  to  us,  of  three  distinct  Persons  in  one 
undivided  Substance.  The  highest  unit,  then,  is  not  the 
unit  of  simplicity.  It  is  the  unit  which  is  differenti- 
ated within  itself  into  variety  and  complexity.  Such 
a  unit  fills  with  satisfaction  the  mind  of  man  and  of 
God.  God  did  not  make  the  solar  system  one  single, 
enormous  globe ;  nor  did  He  make  the  earth  one 
smooth  sphere  of  granite.  No ;  while  He  kept  the 
earth  a  unit,  He  developed  it  into  the  variations  of 
land  and  sea,  of  mysterious  mountain  and  placid  low- 
land, of  storm  and  sunshine,  of  town  and  farm,  and 
forest  and  lake. 

Behold,  then,  in  Catholicity  the  perfect  unit,  the 
unit  of  the  highest  order.  For  while  Romanism  is 
simple  organic  unity  without  diversity,  and  while 
Protestantism  is  diversity  without  organic  unity,  Cath 
olicity  is  organic  unity  in  diversity. 

The  Oriental  type  of  Catholic  man  does  not  object 


Caihohcity  a7id  Protestantism.  97 

to  the  Catholic  worship  which  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Anglican  type  of  man,  nor  does  the  Anglican  object 
to  the  Catholic  worship  that  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Russo-Greek  type  of  man  ;  although  each  prefers  his 
own  for  himself.  No  one  is  disturbed  if  national  re- 
ligious habits  differ,  or  if  each  have  his  services  in  his 
own  language. 

No  two  men  are  alike  ;  and  yet  God  has  organized 
His  one  visible  Church  to  include  all  men.  It  is  It- 
self, then,  Catholic  and,  outside  of  the  fundamentals, 
tolerant.  That  there  should  be  schools  of  thought  in 
Catholicity  is  unavoidable  and  not  perhaps  wrong,  so 
long  as  those  parties  do  not,  in  human  infirmity,  de- 
velop the  exclusive  sect-spirit.  In  the  Catholic  Church 
these  two  forces,  the  party-force  and  the  Christ-force, 
the  sundering. and  the  cohesive,  are  two  poles  of  one 
power,  and  perhaps  each,  in  our  fallen  condition,  may 
be  necessary  to  the  healthy  existence  of  the  other. 
As  in  the  solar  system  there  is  a  centrifugal  force  to 
keep  the  worlds  apart  and  give  variety,  and  a  centrip- 
etal to  bind  them,  nevertheless,  into  oneness,  so  in 
the  domain  of  the  Catholic  Church  the  human  spirit 
of  party  goes  forth  into  variety,  and  the  Divine  power 
of  God  goes  forth  unto  unity.  Protestantism  strikes  out 
the  Catholic  centripetal  force,  and  flies  off  and  to  pieces 


98        Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romamsm, 

Rome  strikes  out  the  centrifugal  force,  and  tumbles 
from  the  perfect  living  unit  into  the  unity  of  simplicity, 
the  unit  of  the  lowest  order.  In  Catholicity,  while  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church  are  proclaimed 
and  the  correlative  duties  of  the  individual  insisted  on, 
the  rights  of  the  individual  as  a  creature  of  God  are 
not  ignored,  but  respected.  While  there  is  hierarchy, 
there  is  yet,  normally,  no  tyranny.  Over  the  child  is 
the  parent,  and  over  the  parent  is  the.  Priest,  and  over 
the  Priest  is  the  Bishop,  and  over  the  Bishop  is  the 
ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Province,  and  over  that 
the  great  Communion  or  Patriarchate,  and  over  that 
the  whole  Catholic  Church  in  space  and  time.  This 
is  the  hierarchy.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered  thai  the 
Church  of  God  is  not  a  democracy,  nor  a  republic  ;  it 
is  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  The  King  is  Jesus 
Christ,  Who  exercises  His  authority  through  officers 
in  regular  gradation  all  the  way  down  to  the  children. 
This  is  the  hierarchy.  And  in  it  each  grade,  if  a 
father  to  the  grade  below  it,  is  itself  a  child  to  the 
grade  above.  Thus  authority  is  kept  from  being  a 
school  of  pride,  finding  its  corrective  in  humility. 
For  if  each  grade,  except  the  lowest,  has  something  to 
command,  it  has  something  also  above  it  to  obey. 
This  is  the  hierarchy.     "  Children,  obey  your  parents, 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  99 

is  the  law  binding  on  every  grade,  arid  it  is  the  mother 
of  order  throughout  all  the  ranks.  And  yet  in  this 
hierarchy  there  is  normally  no  tyranny.  For  suppose 
a  father  should  command  his  child  to  steal  ;  is  the 
child  bound  to  obey  on  penalty  of  breaking  the  fifth 
commandment?  No.  That  were  tyranny.  Even 
the  child  has  its  rights.  And  the  child  knows  that 
the  Priest  is  a  higher  father  still,  and  has  forbidden 
him  to  steal.  And  in  case  of  a  conflict  of  commands 
issuing  from  the  grade  above,  and  the  grade  above 
that,  the  command  issuing  from  the  higher  grade  is  to 
be  obeyed,  rather  than  that  issuing  from  the  lower,  01 
the  fifth  commandment  is  really  broken.  We  must 
obey  the  highest  parent,  all  the  way  up  to  God.  Sup- 
pose the  Priest  should  impose  on  his  people  something 
wrong ;  there  is  no  tyranny  in  the  hierarchy  ;  for  the 
Bishop  is  the  right  reverend  father  to  control  aright 
the  priest.  Suppose  the  Bishop  should  set  up  his 
private  whim  as  binding  upon  Priest  and  people,  still 
there  is  no  tyranny,  for  the  Provincial  authority  is  over 
the  Bishop,  and  the  Bishop  is  bound  to  leave  free  wrtat 
it  leaves  free,  and  to  execute  its  will  and  law,  and  not 
his  own  private  notions.  A  Bishop  once  refused  to  go 
to  the  Church  of  the  Advent,  Boston.  The  Priest  ap- 
pealed, and  the  Provincial   authority  virtually  com- 


loo      Catholicity    Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

manded  the  Bishop  to  go.  Thus,  when  the  child  is  in 
obedience  to  and  in  harmony  with  its  parent,  and  the 
parents  are  in  obedience  to  and  in  harmony  with  the 
Priest,  and  the  Priests  with  the  Bishop,  and  the  Bish- 
ops with  the  Provincial  authority,  and  that  with  the 
great  Catholic  Church,  which  is  the  Body  of  and  in 
harmony  with  Christ,  all  swing  together  in  obedience 
to  and  in  harmony  with  God. 

In  mediaeval  times  the  western  part  of  Catholicity, 
with  all  the  evils  which  the  Goths  and  Vandals 
brought  upon  it,  yet  still  presented  the  ancient  aspect 
of  variety  in  unity.  Even  in  later  times  there  were 
the  varieties  of  the  Ultramontane  and  the  Gallican 
Church.  Nations  had  their  different  rituals.  Why,  in 
Queen  Bess's  time,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  offered  to  ac- 
cept and  acknowledge  the  Reformed  Anglican  Church, 
Ministry,  Prayer-book  and  all,  just  as  She  was,  it 
England  would  only  admit  his  sovereignty  over  her 
Queen.  But  Rome,  that  never  varies,  has  changed  all 
this.  She  has  brought  her  pressure  upon  all  to  Ital- 
ianize and  Romanize  everything  ;  to  wipe  out  all  fair 
varieties,  and  to  reduce  everything  to  a  simple  uni- 
formity. The  Gallican  school  of  thought  is  crushed. 
All  now  everywhere  is  Jesuit.  The  Gallican  Ritual  is 
abolished  ;  all  is  Italianized  and  Romanized.     The  in- 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  loi 

fluence  of  .he  great  St.  Ambrose  gave  to  Milan  certain 
customs,  and  they  held  their  ground  till  recently.  But 
Rome  will  leave  no  variety  ;  she  is  slowly  wiping  what 
little  there  is  left  away.  If  she  clothes  an  Italian 
Bishop,  who  has  no  diocese,  in  oriental  robes  to  say 
Mass,  it  does  not  deceive  the  world  that  is  gazing  in 
attentive  neutralit}'.  She  will  reduce  all  to  the  lower 
order  of  simple  unity  in  all  things.  She  will  brook  no 
variety  in  unity. 

The  statement,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Protestant- 
ism is  utter  diversity  without  organic  unity,  needs  no 
enlargement  or  illustration.  If  there  is  any  apparent 
unity,  it  comes  from  the  fact  that  Protestantism  has 
drifted  so  far  off  toward  negation  that  there  is  little 
care  left  in  it  as  to  what  is  believed.  And  so  in  my 
native  town,  and  elsewhere,  it  has  come  to  pass,  at 
last,  that  the  Unitarian  exchanges  pulpits  with  the 
orthodox  Congregationalist.  Indeed  the  belief  of  the 
Protestant  world  has  settled  down  to  about  this : 
namely,  that  there  is  nothing  especially  true  in  Reli- 
gion ;  and  even  if  there  were,  it  would  not  signify. 

Permit  me  now  to  present  to  you  a  fifth  aspect  of 
Catholicity  in  its  Relationship  to  Protestantism.  Out 
of  the  sacred  century  I  hear  the  utterance,  "  In  every- 
th'ng  ye  are  enriched   by  Christ  j  so  that  ye   come 


102      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

behind  in  no  gift.'  Go  away,  gentlemen,  this  even- 
ing, sit  down  and  seriously  ask  yourselves,  Of  what 
practical  use  were  that  marvelous  Fountain  through 
Which  we  may  be  so  enriched  that  we  come  behind  in 
no  gift,  if  Its  existence  is  spiritualized  away,  and  Its 
location  is  nowhere  in  particular.  Are  we,  as  Chris- 
tians, to  strive  to  reach  Him,  after  the  manner  of  the 
modern  infidel  when  he  dreamily  seeks  communion 
with  the  God  of  Nature  ?  A  thousand  times,  no. 
The  Christian's  God  is  a  God  Incarnate ;  a  God,  Who, 
for  our  sake,  has  come  forth  out  of  indefiniteness  into 
definiteness.  Christianity  is  not  a  system  that 
teaches  that  there  is  a  Church,  but  no  particular 
Church  ;  and  Sacraments  but  no  particular  Sacra- 
ments ;  and  a  Ministry,  but  no  particular  Ministry  ; 
and  Religious  Truth,  but  no  particular  Religious 
Truth  ;  and  a  Lord's  Day,  but  no  particular  Lord's 
Day  ;  and  a  way  of  Salvation,  but  no  particular  way. 

The  Old  Dispensation  did  not  promise  to  us  a 
mere  continuation  of  God,  Omnipresent,  Diffusive  and 
Invisible  ;  but  it  promised  something  new.  It  prom- 
ised Immanu-el ;  it  promised  that  that  God  Who  is 
always  Omnipresent,  should  also  come  and  in  a 
special  sense  be  "  with  us "  in  the  New  Dispen 
sation.     The  perpetual  Incarnation  of  God  on  Earth, 


Catholicity  and  Protestamtsjn.  103 

wrought  by  the  marvelous  miracles  of  Font  and 
Altar,  is  what  distinguishes  the  Christian  Dispensation 
from  the  Jewish  ;  it  is  what  distinguishes  the  Chris- 
tian's God  from  the  infidel's  God  of  Nature.  To  sup 
pose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Christ's  Incarnation  not 
only  began  but  also  ended  with  His  Body  Natural  in 
Palestine — to  suppose  that  that  "  Stone  cut  out  with- 
out hands  "  was  not  to  "  grow  and  become  a  great 
Mountain  and  fill  the  whole  earth,"  is  to  reduce  the 
Holy  Sacraments  to  mere  forms,  and  to  remand  the 
world  back  either  to  Judaism  or  to  Deism. 

It  is  the  Catholic  Church,  then,  that  is  capable  of 
enriching  all  men,  in  everything.  As  the  Church  was 
made  by  God  to  include  all  men,  there  is  no  taste  or 
requirement  belonging  to  human  nature  which  It  can- 
not satisfy.  There  are,  indeed,  morbid  cravings, 
which  arise,  not  out  of  the  elements  that  make  up  hu- 
man nature,  but  out  of  defects  in  character.  These 
are  negative,  rather  than  positive  wants.  And  these 
the  Catholic  Church  does  not  respond  to.  But  what- 
soever is  a  positive  want,  arising  out  of  an  element  of 
human  nature,  that  She  supplies. 

Not  so  a  sect.  Some  men,  for  instance,  have 
spiritual  and  natural  requirements  which  the  Quaker 
sect  could  not  possibly  supply.     Fancy  a  Methodist, 


104      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

full  of  enthusiasm,  going  into  the  ice-house  of  a 
Friends'  Meeting-house.  Fancy  a  man  with  nature 
tenderl)  responsive  to  the  supernatural  attempting  to 
find  food  for  his  hungers  at  the  empty  board  of  a  Uni- 
tarian Lecture  Hall.  Other  men  have  spiritual  re- 
quirements which  the  Methodist  or  the  Presbyterian 
sect  could  not  possibly  supply.  Men  differ;  and 
their  differences  are  so  many  and  so  wide  apart,  that 
nothing  partial,  nothing  but  what  is  as  broad  as  human 
nature  can  meet  the  wants  of  each  and  all.  No  sect, 
whatever  good  it  may  do  to  a  limited  number  of  per- 
sons of  similar  dispositions,  can  in  the  nature  of  things 
be  co-extensive  with  man  in  all  space  and  time. 
Sects,  therefore,  always  have  been  and  always  will  be 
local  both  in  space  and  time.  They  always  have  been 
and  always  will  be,  of  comparatively  fleeting  career, — 
cut  flowers  without  root,  blooming  rank  for  a  while, 
but  soon  withering  away. 

Now  let  us  look  at  man — or  rather  at  men,  and 
see  what  they  are,  and  what  kind  of  a  Church  God 
would,  therefore,  be  likely  to  provide  for  them.  This 
will  display  the  relationship  between  Protestantism  and 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  show  us  where  and  how  it  is 
that  any  given  sect,  or  all  of  them  together,  fail  to  sat  • 
isfy  the  deep  and  lasting  requirements  of  human  nature. 


Catholicity  and  Protestantisfn.  105 

Take  for  instance  any  given  man.  Wiioever  he  is, 
he  is  but  a  very  partial  representative  of  our  human 
nature  in  its  fullness.  For  he  may  have  large  imagina- 
tion and  little  reason ;  or  large  causality  and  compari- 
son and  feeble  social  qualities  ;  or  large  social  nature 
and  little  caution  and  little  reverence ;  he  may  have 
great  ingenuity  and  little  memory  for  names  and 
dates.  One  man  may  have  love  largely  developed, 
and  may  be  reached  most  easily  through  that  faculty  ; 
another  can  only  be  reached  through  his  fear;  an- 
other can  be  reached  through  his  taste  and  assthetical 
nature  ;  while  still  another  can  best  be  reached  only 
through  his  reason.  Thus  no  given  man  is  round  and 
full,  possessing  every  human  faculty  and  element,  with 
each  in  ripe  development,  and  all  in  perfect  harmony 
with  each  other.  Now  each  man  being  thus  a  partial 
and  imperfect  representative  of  complete  human 
nature,  it  follows  that  the  wants  and  hungers  of  differ- 
ent men,  as  we  find  them  in  life,  are  widely  diverse 
from  each  other.  They  differ  according  as  the  ele- 
ments of  our  common  human  nature — reason,  ambition, 
passion,  imagination,  etc.,  are  combined  in  different 
proportions  in  each.  This  being  the  case,  what  would 
be   the  Church   that  God   would   provide  for   men? 

Surely  It  would  not  be  fitted  merely  to  meet  the  wants 
5* 


io6     Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

of  any  one  set  of  men.  Doubtless  It  would  be  a 
Church  capable  of  meeting  and  supplying  all  the 
positive  wants  of  any  man.  It  would  be  a  Catholic 
Church  in  the  broadest  sense  of  the  word.  It  would  be 
endowed  with,  and  capable  of  imparting,  all  supernatu- 
ral truths  possible  to  the  grasp  of  human  nature ;  even 
truths  which  some  men  can  never  grasp  or  hold.  It 
would  include,  too,  all  processes  to  draw  men  ;  intel- 
lectual, to  suit  the  cold  brain  ;  loving,  to  suit  excitable 
natures  ;  calming,  to  suit  quiet  natures  j  threatenings, 
for  human  fears,  even  though  some  men  may  not  be 
timorous  ;  warnings  for  human  caution,  even  though 
some  men  be  not  cautious  ;  beauty  and  stateliness  to 
correspond  with  human  taste,  even  though  some  men 
be  devoid  of  the  esthetic  faculty ;  and  so  on.  Such 
is  the  Church  which  human  endowments  and  corre- 
sponding human  needs  call  for.  Such  is  the  Church 
which  God,  knowing  those  human  needs,  would  be 
likely  to  organize.  Such  He  has,  indeed,  provided 
for  the  world  in  The  Church  Catholic. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  how  is  it  with  the  sects  ? 
How  have  they  subsequently  arisen  ?  The  Catholic 
Church  is,  alas,  harassed  with  differences  inside  Her- 
self. But  why  is  it  that  select  sets  of  men  separate 
themselves  from  the  Church  Catholic,  and  maintain 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism,  107 

their  own  private  "  churches  ?  "     Let  us  look  at  this, 
and  study  it  a  little. 

Just  as  some  men  are  color-blind,  and  cannot  dis- 
tinguish blue  from  green,  or  scarlet  from  magenta,  just 
as  some  men  cannot  tell  one  piece  of  music  from 
another,  so  there  are  sets  of  men  who  are  lacking  in 
other  respects.  Indeed  every  man  is,  as  I  have  said, 
lacking  in  some  respects.  And  so  men  fall  apart  into 
groups.  What  then  do  these  several  groups  do  ? 
Take  the  Congregationalists.  Now  individual  freedom 
is  good ;  and  external  authority  is  good.  But  each 
becomes  bad  if  unchecked  by  the  other.  Internal 
freedom,  unchecked  by  external  authority,  runs  out 
into  license.  Authority  unchecked  by  freedom,  stiffens 
into  tyranny.  But,  nevertheless,  there  are  some  men 
who  have  the  consummate  and  irrepressible  desire 
within  for  the  full  and  free  play  of  all  their  motions  of 
personal  and  private  will,  unchecked  by  its  proper 
qualifier,  viz.,  the  instinct  for  objective  authority  of 
any  kind.  They  are  unbalanced.  It  is  hard  for 
them  to  realize  that  there  can  rightly  be  any  ex- 
ternal authority  bringing  itself  to  bear  upon  them  to 
check  freedom  from  running  into  license.  Being  im- 
perfect and  wanting  in  this  respect,  these  men  do  not 
wish   to  accept   God's   Church,  because  It   contains 


io8      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

something  disagreeable  to  them,  namely,  an  element 
of  authority  over  all  Its  members,  restraining  Its  Bish- 
ops, Priests  and  laity  from  doing,  each,  just  as  he 
pleases.  These  men,  therefore,  go  forth  and  form  a 
religious  organization  with  the  idea  of  authority  cut 
out.  They  set  up  a  Congregational  sect ;  where  each 
parish  shall  be  as  independent  of  every  other,  and  each 
man  in  the  congregation  as  independent  of  every  other 
as  possible.  Another  set  of  people  is  lacking  in 
another  respect,  for  instance,  in  a  large  and  tender 
sympathy  for  the  Supernatural  Objects  of  Faith,  in 
a  sensitiveness  to  the  beings  and  operations  of  the 
unseen  world.  Now  intellect  is  good  and  Faith  is 
good.  But  each  needs  the  other  as  a  check,  if  intel- 
lect is  to  be  saved  from  stiffening  into  hardness,  cold- 
ness and  skepticism,  and  if  Faith  is  to  be  saved  from 
softening  into  weakness  and  superstition.  But,  un- 
checked by  a  due  development  of  the  Faith-side  of 
their  nature,  the  intellect  of  this  set  of  people  has  sole 
play.  All  such  supernatural  and  spiritual  facts  and 
beings  and  operating  laws  are  out  of  their  conscious- 
ness. The  mention  or  thought  of  such  is  in  some 
sense  disagreeable  to  them.  They  therefore  arrange 
a  Unitarian  sect,  in  which  Holy  Sacraments,  Holy 
places,  Holy  (or  separate)  persons  shall  be  as  much 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  109 

excluded  as  possible  j  and  where  they  may  enjoy  with 
unalloyed  attention  the  sermon  as  an  intellectual  treat. 
Another  set  of  men  have  a  large  sense  of  the  absolute 
sovereignty  and  authority  of  God.  But  they  have  this 
sense  to  a  great  degree  unchecked  and  unqualified  by 
its  opposite  complement,  namely,  a  large  sense  also 
of  man's  free  will  and  responsibility.  So,  they  arrange 
for  themselves,  and  for  others  like-minded,  a  Calvin- 
istic  sect.  Another  set  of  very  excellent  people  are 
lacking  on  the  esthetic  side  of  their  natures.  So,  they 
arrange  for  themselves  a  Quaker  sect,  where  not  a 
note  of  music  shall  sound,  and  where  the  benches  and 
walls  shall  be  unpainted,  and  where  every  gay  ribbon 
and  bow  shall  be  abolished. 

Thus  you  will  perceive  that  one  main  peculiarity 
of  sect-ism  is,  that  each  sect  founds  a  system  and  sets 
it  up  to  suit,  not  what  is  in  human  nature,  as  one  of 
its  elements,  as  a  gift  of  God,  but  what  is  not  in  them- 
selves. They  cut  out  what  the  Catholic  Church  sup- 
plies in  order  that  men,  who  are  all  partial  representa- 
tives of  human  nature,  may  each  be  educated,  or  de- 
veloped j  in  order  that  that  in  which  each  is  lacking 
may  be  drawn  out  and  enlarged,  till  we  all  come  to 
"  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ," 
the  perfect  Man. 


no      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Thus  each  sect  is  inherently  intolerant  of  just  that 
fvhich  it  has  no  taste  or  talent  for,  but  which  it  lacks. 
Each  sect  is  inherently  negative  and  protestant.  It 
cries  "  Nay-Nay,"  not  "  Yea- Yea."  You  must  nol 
have  music,  cries  one.  You  must  not  believe  in  this, 
that,  or  the  other  doctrine,  Sacrament  or  process,  say 
the  several  sects  all  round  the  circle. 

One  of  the  saddest  features  is,  too,  that  each  sect 
encourages  an  uneven  development  of  character. 
Indeed,  sectism  is  the  struggle  of  self-willed  man  to 
exclude  the  disagreeable.  Sectism  is  founded  on  the 
satisfaction  of  "  negative  cravings" — that  is,  of  morbid 
hungers  that  arise  out  of  deficiencies  in  human  char- 
acter. On  the  other  hand,  the  Catholic  Church  was 
arranged  by  God  to  appeal  to  and  satisfy  every  "  posi- 
tive craving,"  every  hunger  and  want,  that  is  to  say, 
that  arise  not  out  of  deficiencies  but  out  of  the  ele- 
ments of  human  nature.  The  Catholic  Church  is  thus 
inherently  positive,  instead  of  being  inherently  nega- 
tive. She  is  inherently  calculated  to  break  down,  in- 
stead of  fostering  selfishness  and  bigotry.  '  For  She 
appeals  to  and  finds  Her  raison  d'etre  in  the  fulness  of 
human  nature ;  while  the  sects  find  theirs  in  its 
defects. 

If  my  spiritual  nature  and  wants  and  capacity  arc 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  ill 

partial,  what  quarrel  ought  I  to  have  with  my  brother, 
if,  while  I  find  my  wants  satisfied,  he  also  finds  his 
different  wants  satisfied,  too,  in  the  ample  treasuries  of 
our  common  home,  the  Church.  Rather  should  I 
thank  God  that  my  brother's  needs  are  supplied,  as 
well  as  mine.  Surely,  I  can,  and  surely  I  ought,  with- 
out selfishness,  to  live  at  peace  side  by  side  with  him. 
What  does  that  man  do  but  erect  selfishness  within 
himself,  and  fan  bigotry  within  himself,  what,  more- 
over, does  he  do  but  commit  the  heinous  sin  of 
schism,  who  presumes  to  take  the  Catholic  Church, 
which  God  had  provided  for  us  all,  and  because  he 
and  a  few  of  his  friends  do  not,  for  instance,  want 
anything  esthetical  and  stately  in  its  worship,  or  be- 
cause he  does  not  want  Priestly  absolution,  or  because 
he  does  not  want  the  Sacrament  of  Confirmation,  or 
because  he  does  not  want  for  himself  the  rousing 
storm  of  a  mission,  or  of  a  revival,  or  because  he  does 
not  want  asceticism,  or  any  fasting,  or  any  Saints'  Days 
or  because  he  does  not  want  to  pray  for  his  dear  de- 
parted wife,  child  or  mother,  or  because  he  does  not 
want  to  cherish  a  likeness  or  a  religious  keepsake  of 
a  Saint;  if,  I  say,  he  presumes  to  take  God's  Catholic 
Church  and  narrow  It  to  his  partial  wants  and  limited 
horizon  by  striving  to  cut  out  all  these  things,  and 


112      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

thus  to  deprive  his  poor  brother  of  them,  even  though 
that  brother  happens  to  be  made  a  little  different  from 
himself  in  needs,  capacities  or  grasp  ?  No  !  away  with 
this  spirit  of  selfishness  and  bigotry  and  sectarianism, 
which  feels  that  God's  world  and  God's  Church  were 
made  for  one's  own  select  sect. 

God's  Catholic  Church  is  like  a  landscape,  that 
comes  behind  in  no  gift  to  any  man.  The  engineer 
goes  through  that  landscape ;  and  he  sees  and  is  fed 
by  what  his  peculiarities  crave.  He  sees,  all  along, 
just  where  he  might  put  a  railroad ;  just  how  he  will 
follow  the  water  courses  ;  just  where  he  is  going  to  get 
his  cuttings  for  his  fillings,  and  his  stone  for  his  cul- 
verts, and  his  wood  for  his  sleepers,  and  his  gravel  for 
his  ballast.  And  the  farmer  goes  through  the  land- 
scape ;  and,  lo,  the  landscape  is  rich  to  him,  too.  He 
gets  out  of  it  its  capacity  for  grains  and  grapes  and 
grasses ;  not  but  that  the  farmer  would  be  the  more 
complete  man  if  he  also  saw  with  the  engineer's  eye  j 
or  the  engineer,  if  he  saw  also  with  the  agriculturist's 
eye.  And  the  artist  goes  through  it ;  and,  lo,  it  pre- 
sents its  exquisite  bits  of  scenery  to  him.  And  the 
geologist  goes  through  it ;  and  he  reads  on  its  up- 
turned leaves  the  history  of  the  past.  The  spirit  of 
Catholicity  would  cry,  "  Let  it  alone:  let  us  each  gel 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  113 

all  out  of  the  landscape  that  ever  we  can."  But  the 
spirit  of  sect  would  go  there  and  would  strip  it  of  its 
deep  and  infinite  supplies  to  meet  the  wants  of  diverse 
men,  leaving  only  what  would  satisfy  its  own  peculiar 
self 

Just  because  each  and  every  man  is  a  partial  and 
not  a  complete  representative  of  human  nature,  just 
because  each  man  is  wanting  in  some  elements  of 
character,  so  do  they  all  need  a  Whole  Church  capable 
of  educating  all  the  elements  of  character.  But 
sectarianism  says,  on  the  other  hand,  because  men 
are  fragmentary,  so  must  we  break  up  that  Church 
into  little  pieces — so  that  one  piece  shall  have  and 
teach  God  The  Father  and  the  four  Gospels  alone, 
without  the  Atonement  or  God  The  Son,  or  much  else  j 
and  another  piece  shall  teach  the  Trinity  and  the 
Atonement  without  the  Sacramental  System,  or  much 
else ;  and  another  piece  shall  teach  free  will  without 
God's  sovereignty ;  and  another,  God's  sovereignty 
without  free  will ;  and  another,  faith  without  works  ; 
and  another,  works  without  faith  \  and  another,  dip- 
ping in  Baptism  without  pouring;  and  another, 
pouring  without  dipping;  (and  so  on  through  the 
whole  diapason  of  doctrines  and  practice ;)  and  then 
let  us  draw  as  many  men  as  we  can  out  of  the  great 


114      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Fomanism. 

Cathedral  with  its  many  windows  alow  and  aloft,  lei 
ting  in  the  light  from  all  around,  nave,  clere-story, 
transepts,  lady-chapel,  lantern,  choir,  east  end,  and 
west  end,  and  shut  them  up  in  our  little  room  with 
its  one  or  two  windows  letting  in  light  at  one  side,  one 
end  or  one  corner  only. 

God  has  made  His  Catholic  Church,  and  endowed 
It  with  every  gift,  not  only  that  all  may  find  in  It  what 
they  severally  crave,  but  that  each  also  may  be  schooled 
in  what  he  may  be  wanting. 

But  the  sectarian  cries  to  all  the  world,  out  of  his 
deficiencies  and  out  of  the  antipathies  which  those 
defects  rear  within  him,  "  Come  to  our  sect ;  you  do 
not  like  Confirmation  ;  neither  did  we ;  that  is  our 
'  nay  ;'  we  have  founded  a  sect  on  that  '  nay  ;'  come  to 
us  j  you  will  not  find  any  Confirmation  with  us  :"  or, 
"  Come  to  our  sect,  you  hate  enthusiasms  in  religion  ; 
so  do  we  ;  that  is  our  *  nay  ;'  we  have  founded  a  sect 
accordingly  ;  come  to  us,  you  will  not  find  any  revivals 
among  us  : "  or,  "  There  is  a  deal  of  music  in  the 
world,  indeed,  but  you  do  not  like  music,  you  think  it 
is  wicked ;  so  do  we  ;  music  is  our  *  nay ; '  we  have 
founded  a  sect  on  our  lacks,  where  we  have  no  music, 
but  sit  still  for  the  Spirit  to  move  us :  "  or  "  Come  to 
our  sect  j  you  hate  these  Religious  ;  so  do  we ;  we 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  115 

have  founded  a  sect  on  our  and  your  deficiencies  and 
dislikes  ;  you  will  not  find  any  monks  and  nuns  with 
us:"  or  "You  do  not  like  anything  stately  and  beauti- 
ful in  worship ;  neither  did  we ;  we  have  founded  a 
sect  on  our  deficiencies  in  taste  j  you  will  not  find  any 
boy-choirs  or  processions  or  ritual  with  us."  And  so 
on  to  the  end  of  the  list  of  *  Nays.' 

But  come,  saith  God,  come,  says  Catholicity  with 
Her  "  Yeas,"  come  to  the  Church.  Do  you  want 
freedom  ?  You  will  find  freedom  here.  Do  you  want 
authority  t  You  will  find  it  here.  Do  you  want  the 
contemplative  and  praying  life  ?  You  will  find  it  here. 
Do  you  want  the  active,  secular  life  t  You  will  find 
it  here.  And  so  through  all  the  wants  that  arise,  not 
out  of  the  defects,  but  out  of  the  endowments  of  hu- 
man nature. 

If  any  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  through  the 
lapse  of  the  centuries  grows  untrue  to  Her  functions, 
and  therefore  untrue  to  man  to  whom  She  is  sent,  that 
part  must  expect  one  of  two  things  ;  either  a  struggle 
and  a  turmoil  within  Herself  till  She  takes  up  again  and 
uses  the  weapons  against  the  world  which  have  been 
allowed  to  lie  idle  and  to  rust  in  her  armories  ;  or  if  this 
does  not  take  place.  She  must  expect  sects  to  spring 
up   around  Her  as   Her  punishment.      For   human 


Ii6      Catholicity^  Protesta?itis?n  atid  Rotnanism, 

nature  will  have  neither  tyranny  nor  license,  skepticisni 
nor  superstition,  baldness  nor  mere  empty  formalism. 
But  there  is  another  divine  economy  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  which  lifts  Her  immeasurably  above  any 
sect.  If  all  men  were  made  exactly  alike  in  character,, 
development  and  grasp,  all  would  be  equally  receptive, 
and  the  Church  would  be  able  to  impart  a  fixed 
amount  of  Her  exhaustless  gifts  to  each.  But  first,  all 
men  start  away  in  life,  ignorant  and  devoid  of  even  a 
single  one  of  the  gifts  and  truths  which  the  Church 
bestows.  Then,  secondly,  men  develop  afterwards 
into  differences  of  grasp ;  their  circumstances  are 
such,  too,  that  their  opportunities  and  time  for  ac- 
quiring systematic,  moral  and  ascetic  theology,  and 
for  attaining  spiritual  growth,  differ.  No  man,  indeed, 
however  aged  and  able,  is  ever  in  such  position  that 
he  may  not  learn  yet  more  than  he  already  knows, 
that  he  may  not  attain  to  higher  grades  of  spirituality, 
that  he  may  not  look  deeper  into  truths  he  has  already 
received,  or  the  better  understand  the  relationship 
which  these  profound  truths  bear  to  each  other.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Catholic  Church  contains  all  spir 
itual,  theological,  moral  and  ascetic  truth,  each  in  its 
entirety.  These  are  all,  not  actually,  but  potentially, 
made  over  to  each  member  of  the  Church,  that  all  the 


Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  117 

members  may  severally  come  into  actual  possession 
of  as  much  as  ever  each  one  can.  Each  one,  whether 
he  is  a  child  learning  his  catechism,  or  a  youth  in  the 
Bible  class,  or  a  youngj  man,  a  middle-aged  or  an  old 
man,  should  thank  God  for  all  he  knows  or  has  as- 
similated to  himself;  but  his  true  attitude  is  not  to 
deny  what,  either  through  his  want  of  grasp,  or  want 
of  years,  or  want  of  opportunity  and  time,  or  want  of 
complete  development  as  a  representative  of  hu- 
man nature,  he  does  not  yet  receive.  He  should 
enjoy  his  actual  possessions,  and  not  be  resistant  to, 
or  protestant  against,  those  potential  possessions 
which  are  his  nevertheless,  which  have  been  made 
over  to  him  by  the  Church,  as  though  they  were 
false  because  he  has  not  happened  to  hear  of  them 
before,  or  been  able  to  grasp  or  profit  by  them. 

Now  if  I  had  a  museum,  an  academy  containing 
facilities  for  learning  all  of  art,  and  of  fine  art,  of 
manufacture,  and  geology,  and  botany,  and  languages, 
and  every  science,  and,  indeed,  all  knowledge,  and  if 
I  put  into  it  a  hundred  thousand  men  of  different 
tastes  and  capacities,  as  into  a  school,  I  have  en- 
riched them,  each  and  all ;  I  have  held  back  from  no 
one,  anything.  There  would,  therefore,  be  no  possi- 
bility, either  for  the  mind  of  any  one  of  them  to  fail 


II 8     Catholicity,,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

of  its  own  proper  food,  or  for  any  mind  among  them 
all  to  have  a  stunted  growth. 

Now  the  Catholic  Church  of  God  is  analogous  to 
such  a  complete  school.  No  sect  is  a  universal  school. 
What  is  the  difference,  then,  between  a  man  in  the 
Church  and  a  man  in  a  sect?  In  a  sect  he  has 
grasp  of  partial  truth.  But  no  one  in  the  Church 
has  complete  grasp  of  the  whole  truth  either.  So 
there  is  no  difference  here.  Nevertheless,  the  Cath- 
olic Churchman  has  an  immense  advantage  over 
the  other.  For  even  if  he  also  has  not  actual  grasp 
of  the  whole  round  of  Catholic  truths,  and  even  if 
he  does  use  some  only  of  the  whole  circle  of  Catholic 
appliances  tending  to  a  complete  spiritual  and  moral 
growth  and  development,  he  is  at  any  rate  in  the 
Church  where  all  the  rest  of  the  truths  and  appli- 
ances are ;  he  is  not  cut  off  from  them ;  they  are  all 
potentially  his,  and  may  happily,  sooner  or  later,  one 
after  another,  become  actually  his,  to  his  great  en- 
richment and  advantage.  God  does  not  expect  the 
child  to  be  as  far  advanced  in  learning  or  growth  as 
the  youth,  or  the  youth  as  the  adult,  or  the  young  man 
as  the  old  man,  or  those  with  partial  opportunities  for 
attaining  all  that  is  possible  to  be  attained  as  those 
with  full.     But,  on   the  other  hand,  take  this  same 


Catholicity  afid  Protestantism-  119 

person  out  of  God's  Catholic  Church  and  put  him  in 

a  sect,  which  simply  presents  doctrines  and  practices 
with  which  the  tide  of  his  partial  development  and 
defective  character  is  merely  on  a  level,  and  behold, 
he  is  absolutely  cut  oft*  from  all  the  rest  of  the  circle 
of  truth,  and  from  all  the  rest  of  the  round  of  appli- 
ances. Nay,  worse,  he  is  not  only  cut  off"  from  them, 
but  he  is  encouraged  in  prohibiting  them  to  himself. 
What  hope  is  there,  then,  except  that  such  a  man  must 
have  a  narrow,  bigoted,  stunted  religious  development 
and  life. 

Some  of  you,  gentlemen,  are  already  Catholic 
Churchmen.  Have  you  carried  these  thoughts,  of 
which  I  am  to-night  the  mouth-piece,  out  to  their 
legitimate  conclusions  in  your  hearts  ?  I  am  here 
it  is  true  for  a  course  of  conferences,  and  not  of 
sermons.  I  am  here  to  speak  to  your  heads  and 
not  to  your  hearts.  But  suffer  me,  if,  for  a  mo- 
ment, I  transgress  the  bounds  of  my  present  mis- 
sion, and  do  not  forget  that  I  am  a  Priest  speaking 
to  men  who  have  hearts  as  well  as  heads.  Let  me 
remind  you,  then,  that  in  God's  great  Church  the 
Catholic  has  no  quarrel  with  the  Low  Churchman. 
The  truths  which  the  Low  Churchman  holds,  he  holds 
in  common  with  us.     God  bless  him  as  he  carries  the 


I20     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

great  truth  of  the  Atonement,  the  Cross  of  our  Blessed 
Saviour,  without  which  we  are  all  lost,  on  and  out  into 
a  sinful  world.  God  bless  him,  as,  full  of  zeal  and 
of  the  love  of  souls,  he  gathers  earnest  men  around 
him  in  his  lecture  room,  that  he  may  exhort  them 
and  that  they  may  exhort  each  other  and  pray  with 
each  other.  We  hold  everything  which  he  holds  j 
but  we  hold  a  great  deal  more  besides  of  the  great 
round  of  Catholic  truth.  We  can  join  him  in  his 
prayer  meeting ;  but  let  us  have  no  quarrel  with  him 
if,  after  the  meeting  is  over,  he  will  not  go  with  us, 
besides,  to  the  Altar  and  fall  down  in  adoration  before 
our  Lord  Christ  and  God.  The  difficulty  comes  in 
where  he,  instead  of  being  passive  as  to  the  additional 
and  not  incompatible  truths,  actually  denies  them  for 
us  as  well  as  for  himself,  and,  in  a  spirit  of  sectism,  has 
a  fierce  quarrel  with  us  for  accepting  from  the  Church 
and  believing  a  little  more  than  he  does. 

Now,  my  Catholic  friends,  let  us  beware  on  our 
side  of  that  self  same  spirit  of  sectism,  which  would 
prompt  us  to  drive  him  out  of  the  Church  because  he 
holds  only  a  part  and  not  what  we  claim  to  be  full 
truth  as  set  forth  in  the  formularies  of  the  Church. 
For  if,  like  bigoted  sectarians,  we  drive  him  out 
where  could  he  go  except  into  something  where  he 


Catholicity  and  Protestatitism.  121 

would  be  actually  cut  off  from  learning  those  blessed 
truths  ? 

But,  besides,  there  is  another  reason  why  we  have, 
on  our  side,  no  quarrel  either  with  our  Low  Church  or 
with  our  old  fashioned  High  Church  brethren ;  but 
rejoice  rather  that  they  are  all  in  the  Church,  and 
hope  that  one  and  all  will  stay.  And  that  is,  because, 
even  if  we  are  fully  conscious  that  they  have  not  yet 
received  all  the  truth  which  the  Church  has  to  impart 
to  them  in  Her  Prayer  Book,  we  ourselves,  even 
though  we  receive  a  little  more  than  they,  are  by  no 
means  graduates.  For  we  all  are  learners,  as  I  have 
said,  and  always  will  be,  in  Her  vast  school  of  infinite 
truth.  And  we  shall  never,  any  of  us,  learn  the 
whole,  till  we  get  into  that  Higher  School  where  we 
shall  see  the  Lord  face  to  face  in  Beatific  Vision. 
The  fact  is,  we  are  simply  all  of  us.  Low,  High  and 
Catholic,  standing  at  different  positions  on  an  in- 
clined plane  of  grasp,  opportunity  and  receptiveness  ; 
while  Christ,  through  the  Church,  stands  ready  to  en- 
rich us  all  in  everything,  so  that  we  come  behind  in  no 
gift. 

Let  us  have,  I  say,  no  quarrel  whatever  with  them 
Let  us  pray  God  that  they  may  cease  their  quarrel 
with  us  3  and  that   we  may  all  love  each  other,  and 


122     Catholicity^  Protestantism  a?id  Ro7nanisvu 

bear  with  each  other,  and  pray  for  each  other,  and 
work  with  each  other,  and  think  no  evil  of  each  other ; 
knowing  that  we  shall  all  do  well,  if  we  only  continue 
sitting  in  humility  and  teachableness  around  the  knee 
of  our  great,  kind,  patient  Mother  the  Church  Catho- 
lic j  and  realizing  more  fully,  the  more  we  learn,  how 
dangerous  a  little  learning  is  ;  how  full  it  is  apt  to  be 
of  the  spirit  of  arrogance,  bitterness  and  hardness ; 
for  down  to  a  certain  point  the  less  a  man  knows, 
alas,  the  more  he  thinks  he  knows. 

Gentlemen  : — You  have  assigned  to  me  three 
Conferences  on  Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  In 
bidding  farewell  to  this  first  half  of  our  subject,  let  us 
see  to  what  we  trace  back  Catholicity,  and  to  what  we 
trace  back  Protestantism.  We  follow  Catholicity 
back,  with  its  stately  Rituals  and  comforting  dogmas, 
to  the  sixteenth  century  ;  back  through  the  middle 
ages  to  the  ages  of  the  Six  Great  Councils ;  back  to 
St.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  to  St.  Polycarp,  Bishop 
of  Smyrna,  to  St.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  whose 
name  St.  Paul  says  is  written  on  the  Book  of  Life,  to 
St.  Timothy,  Archbishop  of  Ephesus,  and  St.  Titus, 
of  Crete,  to  Sts.  Andrew,  John  and  James,  and  up  to 
Him  who  said,  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for 
they  shall  see  God  ;  blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they 


Catholicity  a7id  Protestantism.  123 

shall  inherit  the  earth  ;  blessed  are  they  which  do 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,  for  they  shall  be 
filled  ;  blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy."  We  follow  it  up  to  Him  who  was  much  in 
worship,  much  in  holy  meditation,  much  in  prayer. 

We  follow  Protestantism  back  to  the  sixteenth 
century  and  up  to  Martin  Luther,  on  the  other  hand, 
who,  writing  of  holy  meditation  and  prayer,  said ; 
"  When  the  monks,  sitting  in  their  cells,  meditated  on 
God  and  His  works,  when,  inflamed  with  the  most 
ardent  devotion,  they  bowed  the  knee,  prayed  and  con- 
templated heavenly  things  with  so  much  delight  that 
they  shed  tears  ;  here  was  no  thought  of  women  nor 
of  any  other  creature,  but  only  of  the  Creator  and  His 
marvelous  works.  And  yet  this  thing,  most  spiritual 
in  the  judgment  of  reason,  is,  according  to  Paul,  a 
work  of  the  flesh.  Wherefore  all  such  is  religious 
idolatry  ;  and  the  more  holy  and  spiritual  it  is  in  ap- 
pearance, the  more  pernicious  and  pestilential  it  is." 
I  do  not  know,  I  am  sure,  why  Scientific  Meditation 
has  so  become  a  lost  art  in  Protestant  lands  that  we 
have  to  teach  the  art  all  over  again  ;  I  do  not  know 
why  worship  has  so  died  away  that  meeting-houses  are 
shut  up  from  Sunday  night  to  the  subsequent  Sunday 
morning.     I  do  not  know  why  it  should  be  that  when 


124     Catholicity^  Protestantism  aiid  Eomafiism. 

in  Mecklenburg,  an  inquiry  was  made  into  the  state  of 
the  Established  Lutheran  Church  in  1854,  "it  was  as- 
certained that,  in  the  three  head  churches  of  the  Prin- 
cipality, there  had  been  no  divine  service  two  hundred 
and  twenty-eight  times,  because  there  had  been  no 
congregation."  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  that  the 
Hartford  (Conn.)  Courant  should  have  informed  the 
world  ten  years  ago  thus:  "The  Congregational  min- 
isters of  Connecticut  have  thoroughly  convassed  their 
parishes  to  ascertain  the  actual  religious  condition  of 
the  State.  The  result  was  unexpected.  In  one  hun- 
dred towns  at  least  one-third  of  the  families  are  not 
in  the  habit  of  going  to  church.  Irreligion  was  found 
to  increase  in  proportion  to  the  distance  from  the 
centre  of  towns.  It  prevails  more  in  sparsely-settled 
farming  districts  than  in  the  manufacturing  villages- 
The  Committee  on  Home  Evangelization  say  in  their 
published  report :  *  The  returns  give  the  impression 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  population  do  not  often  sink 
to  so  low  a  grade  of  heathenism  as  the  irreligious 
native-born  population.  They  do  not  entirely  aban- 
don some  thought  of  God,  and  some  respect  for  their 
religious  observances.  Uniformly  the  districts  most 
utterly  given  over  to  desolation  are  districts  occupied  by 
a  population  purely  native -American.     A  similar  state 


CatJwlicity  and  Protestantism.  125 

of  things  is  reported  to  exist  in  some  parts  of  Massa- 
chusetts.' "  I  do  not  know  why  prayer  hath  so  died 
away.  I  only  know  what  the  Solifidian,  Luther, 
said. 

We  trace  Protestantism  back  to  Luther,  who  said, 
again  :  "  Thou  seest  how  rich  is  the  Christian  ;  even 
if  he  will,  he  cannot  destroy  his  salvation  by  any  sins 
how  grievous  soever,  unless  he  refuse  to  believe." 
Who  said  again  :  "  Be  thou  a  sinner  and  sin  boldly, 
but  still  more  boldly  believe  and  rejoice  in  Christ. 
From  Him  sin  shall  not  separate  us  ;  no,  though  a 
thousand  times  in  every  day  we  should  commit  forni- 
cation or  murder."  Who  said  again  ;  "  If  in  faith  an 
adultery  were  committed,  it  were  no  sin."  To  Martin 
Luther,  who  said  :  "  The  Gospel  does  not  bid  us  do 
anything,  or  bid  us  leave  anything  undone  ;  it  exacts 
nothing  of  us  ;  quite  the  contrary.  In  place  of  saying, 
*  Do  this,  do  that,'  it  simply  requires  us  to  spread  out 
our  lap  and  accept,  saying,  '  Hold  !  see  what  God  has 
done  for  you,  and  given  His  own  Son  to  be  incarnate 
for  you:  accept  the  gift,  believe,  and  you  are  saved.'  " 
And  again :  "  You  owe  nothing  to  God,  nothing,  ex- 
cept to  believe  and  confess  Him.  In  everything  else 
He  leaves  you  perfect  liberty  to  do  exactly  what  you 
like,  without  any  peril  for  your  conscience  ;  even — for 


126     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

He  is  quite  indifferent  to  it — you  may  abandon  your 
wife,  or  desert  your  husband,  or  not  keep  any  engage- 
ment you  have  contracted,  for  what  concern  is  it  to 
God  whether  you  do  these  things  or  not  ? '  To  Lu- 
ther, who  wrote  again  to  one  suffering  from  remorse 
on  account  of  his  sins :  "  Drink,  play,  laugh  and  do 
some  sin  even  as  an  act  of  defiance  and  contempt  to 
the  devil.  Therefore,  if  the  devil  says  to  you,  *  Don't 
drink  so,'  do  you  reply  to  him,  '  Aye,  I  will  drink  all 
the  more  copiously  in  the  name  of  Christ.'  Thus  do 
just  contrary  to  that  which  Satan  (/.  ^.,  conscience) 
prompts.  One  can  drive  these  Satanic  thoughts  away 
by  introducing  other  thoughts,  such  as  that  of  a  pretty 
girl,  avarice,  drunkenness,  or  by  giving  way  to  violent 
passion :  such  is  my  advice.'^ 

We  trace  Protestantism  back  to  Melancthon,  who 
said  :  "  Whatever  thou  doest,  whether  thou  eatest, 
drinkest,  workest  with  thy  hand,  I  may  add  shouldst 
thou  even  sin  therewith,  Ijok  not  to  thy  works ;  weigh 
,  the  promise  of  God."  Who  said  again,  "  God  ought 
not  to  displease  you  when  He  damns  the  innocent. 
All  things  take  place  by  the  eternal  and  invariable 
will  of  God,  Who  blasts  and  shatters  in  pieces  the  free 
dom  of  the  will.  God  creates  in  us  the  evil  in  like 
manner  as  the  good.     The  high  perfection  of  faith  is 


Catholicity  and  Protestantisin,  127 

to  believe  that  God  is  just,  notwithstanding  that  by 
His  will  He  renders  us  necessarily  damnable."  And 
again  :  "We  cannot  advise  that  the  license  of  marrying 
more  wives  than  one  be  publicly  introduced.  There  is 
nothing  unusual  in  princes  keeping  concubines ;  and 
although  the  lower  orders  may  not  perceive  the  ex- 
cuses of  the  thing,  the  more  intelligent  know  how  to 
make  allowance." 

We  trace  Protestantism  back  to  Calvin,  who  said 
that  God  instigates  man  to  the  commission  of  what  is 
evil,  and  that  man's  fall  into  crime  is  ordained  by  the 
providence  of  God.  To  Zwingli,  who  asserted  that 
God  "  is  the  author,  mover  and  impeller  to  sin,"  and 
that  He  uses  the  instrumentality  of  man  to  produce 
injustice  ;  "  He  it  is  who  moves  the  robber  to  murder 
the  innocent."  We  trace  Protestantism  back  to  Beza, 
who  said  :  "  The  Almighty  creates  a  portion  of  men 
to  be  His  instruments,  with  the  intent  of  carrying  out 
His  evil  designs  through  them."* 

But,  O  Jesus,  Thou  didst  teach  thy  Catholic  Church 
that  "  God  is  love  !  " 

Mr.   Beecher,  in  his  remarkable  sermons  of  last 

*  I  am  indebted  for  many  of  these  extracts  from  the  Reformers 
to  Mr.  Baring-Gould,  who,  in  his  "  Origin  and  Development "  and 
**  Luther  and  Justification,"  gives  the  references. 


128     Catholicity^  Protestantis77i  a?id  Roinanis7n. 

Sunday,  in  admitting,  even  more  fully  than  one  had 
charged,  the  wide-spread  prevalence  of  atheism,  pan- 
theism and  infidelity  generally  in  Protestant  lands, 
and  even  in  Protestant  churches  themselves,  says  : 
"  No  matter;  Christianity,  nevertheless,  will  not  die." 
Of  course  not  :  for  Catholicity  still  stands  with  its 
rounded  sphere  of  truth,  and  the  Gates  of  Hell  will 
not  prevail  against  It.  And  even  Protestantism,  in 
dashing  the  sphere  to  flinders,  holds  for  a  while  shat- 
tered shards  of  it.  The  sun  of  Catholicity,  sending  its 
gravitating  force  even  beyond  its  own  system  and  into 
the  outer  spaces,  has  had,  and  will  have  a  restraining 
power.  It  is  the  system  of  Protestantism  that  has  been 
aMacked  in  these  lectures,  not  any  man — not  any  man, 
]  ying  or  dead  ;  not  even  the  shockingly  sinful  Zwingli, 
nor  the  unhappy,  conscience-tormented  Luther.  Sys- 
tems may  be  hateful,  but  all  men  are  dear  ;  and  false 
systems  are  hateful  because  all  men  are  dear. 

If  Protestantism  be  not  a  failure,  if  the  Anglican 
Church  as  a  double  witness  against  Protestantism  and 
Rome  be  not  right,  in  God's  name  let  it  be  known. 
For  we  speak  in  sorrow,  not  in  anger,  to  friends  and 
respected  brothers,  all  of  whom  love  Jesus  Christ  and 
His  Name  as  much  as  we  do  ;  and  we  seek  not  vie 
tory,  but  truth. 


FOURTH    CONFERENCE. 

Function  of  Reason  in  Religion.  Difference  between 
THE  Catholic  and  the  Roman  Idea  of  the  Unity  op 
THE  Church. 

Gentlemen, 

God  has  given  to  each  of  us  the  gift  of  reason  ; 
and  we  have  no  right  either  to  destroy  or  to  misuse  a 
gift  of  His.  The  proper  exercise  of  reason  is,  there- 
fore, a  responsibility  from  which  no  human  being  can 
escape.  The  function  of  reason  is  unlimited  in  the 
natural  realm,  except  by  the  theological  virtue  of 
Faith  and  by  the  Fifth  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  name- 
ly, the  Gift  of  Knowledge.  Reason  hath  its  function 
in  the  supernatural  realm  also.  For  if  God  is  on 
earth  in  a  speaking  Body,  or  Catholic  Church,  we 
must,  first  of  all,  be  convinced  of  that  fact.  Reason, 
therefore,  is  the  prelude  of  faith.  Being  convinced, 
we  afterwards  accept,  without  arguing,  what  God 
through  His  Catholic  Body  states  to  be  the  Truth. 

But  there  is  a  preliminary  difficulty.  What  is  this 
Catholic  Body  ?  Two  different  theories  concerning 
this   point   present  their  claims  to  us.     Fortunately 


130      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

there  are  only  two.  Rome  claims  that  she  alone  is 
this  Catholic  Church.  The  Anglican  Communion 
claims  that  the  Catholic  Church  includes  all  the  Com- 
munions that  have  the  Apostolic  and  Catholic  Minis- 
try, Faith  and  Sacraments.  What  are  we  to  do  then 
in  presence  of  these  two  differing  theories,  the  inclu- 
sive and  the  exclusive  .?  Clearly  we  cannot  escape  the 
responsibility  of  still  further  exercising  our  private 
judgment,  and  of  deciding,  each  for  himself,  which  of 
these  two  claims  is  right. 

But  before  we  go  on,  let  us  see  what  it  is  we  have 
already  settled  in  our  minds.  You  will  remember 
that  in  our  First  Conference  the  hand  of  logic  led  us 
into  a  certain  conclusion.  That  conclusion  was,  that 
Almighty  God,  having  broken  through  the  dome  of 
Nature  and  come  in  among  us  to  save  us  from  drown- 
ing in  mere  guess-work  touching  Supernatural  law 
and  fact  here  and  hereafter,  remained  en  rapport  with 
us  in  a  continuous  organic  Body  of  human  matter, 
called  the  Visible  Body  Mystical  of  Christ,  or  Holy, 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  This,  you  will  re- 
member, was  the  answer  to  the  Second  Great  Question 
with  which  we  were  brought  face  to  face  in  our  search 
for  the  truth. 

When  we  thus  speak  of  an  organic  body  we  mean 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  131 

a  body  which  has  correlated  parts  ;  i.  e.  differing 
members  whose  functions  are  reciprocal,  and  whose 
inter-action  is  orderly.  Now,  incidentally,  we  may 
remark, that  historic  fact  bears  out  the  logical  conclu- 
sion at  which  we  have  arrived.  For  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  the  Christian  Body,  that  stood  on 
earth  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  was  an  organic  and 
visible  Body.  As  we  read  the  sacred  Epistles  we  find 
them  addressed  to  the  saints  at  Ephesus,  at  Corinth, 
at  Colosse.  We  find  them  containing  instructions 
and  rules  for  those  saints.  It  appears,  then,  that 
some  parts  of  this  organic  Body  were  rulers  and 
others  were  the  ruled.  We  also  see,  early  in  the  Gos- 
pels, allusions  made  to  two  of  its  Sacraments ;  and 
afterwards,  in  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles, 
we  find  that  these  two,  with  a  third  and  others,  £.re 
regularly  arranged  as  a  part  of  the  organic  Body,  and 
commanded  to  be  used.  Christ  saith  to  the  Apos- 
tles, "  All  power  is  given  unto  Me  both  in  Heaven 
and  Earth  ;  "  "  Go  ye,  therefore.  Baptise  all  nations  ;  " 
*'  teach  them  ;  "  "  Do,  (/.  e.  offer)  This  as  a  Memorial 
of  Me  ; "  "  Whosoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted 
unto  them."  We  read,  moreover,  as  follows,  viz., 
"  Ordain  elders  in  every  city ; "  "  The  husband  is  the 
head  of  the  wife,  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church. 


132      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

This  is  a  great  Sacrament,  but  I  speak  concerning 
Christ  and  the  Church;"  '*Then  laid  St.  Paul  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on 
them  ; "  "  Let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with 
oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Thus  we  see  an  organic  Body  created,  with  Sacra 
ments,  with  members  whose  function  it  was  to  rule,  to 
instruct,  and  to  administer  those  Sacraments  ;  and 
with  members  whose  function  it  was  to  be  the  re- 
cipients of  those  teachings,  of  that  discipline  and  of 
those  Sacraments.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that,  in  the  organization  of  that  Christian  Body,  in  the 
appointing  and  arranging  of  its  correlative  parts,  and 
in  the  commission  of  its  rulers,  God,  /.  e.  Christ, 
worked  directly.  On  Whitsunday  God  the  Holy 
Ghost  descended  upon  this  Body  or  Church  to  fill  It 
with  Himself,  and  to  make  It,  as  an  organic  Body,  a 
living  and  life-giving  appliance  unto  the  world. 
Later  on,  the  Holy  Ghost  commands  the  rulers  of  the 
Body  to  commit  the  powers  they  had  received  to 
others,  faithful  men  ;  that  those  powers  and  functions 
might  continue  in  the  Body,  and  not  cease  through 
the  death  of  their  original  possessors.  Thus  nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that,  as  an  historical  fact,  God 
Himself  organized  a  visible  Church  on  earth. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  133 

This  divinely  organized  Church  had,  furthermore, 
a  two-fold  function  to  perform  :  first,  a  pastoral  func- 
tion ;  to  build  up,  namely.  Its  own  members  in  the 
truth  and  in  godliness  of  life ;  and,  secondly,  a  mis- 
sionary function ;  to  spread,  namely,  into  all  the 
world,  and  to  gather  into  Its  bosom  and  into  oneness 
with  Itself  all  peoples.  And  the  promise  is  given  to 
this  Divine  Catholic  organism,  that  It  should  not  die, 
that  Its  Soul  should  not  depart  from  It,  "  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  always  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  this  entire 
Organic  Body,  with  the  light  with  which  It  was  en- 
dowed, with  Its  truth-dispensing  officers  and  grace- 
dispensing  Sacraments,  was  arranged  on  earth  by  a 
loving  God  for  the  benefit  of  an  ignorant  and  sinful 
race.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that,  prior  to  its 
existence,  men  were  in  darkness  touching  some  of  the 
most  important  and  saving  truths  and  ways  of  eternal 
life  ;  and  that  light  as  to  these  matters  did  spread 
forth  among  men  from  this  Organic  Body  as  a  centre, 
and  from  It  alone,  until  Polytheism  and  its  rites  fell 
all  over  Europe,  and  Olympus  was  depopulated. 
Hence,  as  this  Body  was  to  be  a  Divine  Teacher  and 
Dispenser  of  grace,  an  Administrator  of  Christ  and  of 
His  truths  and  of  His  gifts  unto  men,  it  is  evident 


134      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

that  It  could  not  have  been  a  mere  ephemeral  crea- 
tion. God  did  not  organize  It  on  earth  for  some  men 
or  for  a  few  generations  only ;  but  for  all  men  in  all 
time;  "Go  ye:  baptise  all  nations."  Indeed  Christ 
promised  to  b^^  with  It  till  the  end.  A  priori^  It 
possessed,  as  an  organic  Body,  a  continuous  and 
sacred  life ;  a  continuous  life  and  succession  in  Its 
Ministry,  in  Its  Sacraments,  in  Its  Faith,  and  in  Its 
Traditions.  It  must  therefore,  as  an  organic  undying 
Bod}^,  with  Its  rulers  and  teachers,  Its  ordinances, 
rites,  worship  and  light-giving  powers,  have  passed  on 
through  the  centuries,  and  It  must  be  in  existence  to- 
day. 

To  kill  It,  is  the  essential  act  of  murder,  of  which 
all  other  murders  are  mere  types  ;  for,  to  kill  It,  is  no 
less  than  the  murder  of  God  on  earth,  the  repetition 
of  the  tragedy  on  Calvary.  To  rob  It  of  Its  powers,  is 
the  essential  theft,  of  which  all  other  thefts  are  types. 
To  set  up  a  sect  as  a  rival  to  It,  that  that  sect  may 
bear  children  unto  Christ,  is  the  essential  whoredom 
and  adultery,  of  which  all  other  adulteries  are  but 
types.  And  when  the  essential  adultery  has  been 
committed  by  a  great  people,  it  is  comparatively  easy 
for  them  to  look  less  sternly  than  they  should  on  all 
other  adulteries,  and  to  demand  of  their  State  Legis- 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  135 

latures  laws  of  easy  divorce.  Wilfully  to  misrepresent 
and  slander  It,  is  the  essential  false-witness,  of  which 
all  other  lying  is  a  type.  For,  the  four  laws  of  the 
Second  Table, in  which  man's  duty  to  man  is  summed 
up,  Thou  shalt  not  hurt  thy  neighbor  in  his  person,  in 
his  property,  in  his  good  name,  or  in  his  chastity,  have 
their  origin  philosophically  and  theologically  not  in  the 
arbitrary  will  of  God,  or  in  the  well-being  of  man,  but 
in  the  archetypal  structure  and  well-being  of  God 
Himself.  All  injury  to  man  is  sin,  because  it  is  a  type 
of  an  awful  and  corresponding  outrage  upon  God. 
Protestantism  therefore  is  a  sin,  because  it  is  a  fearful 
attack  on  the  well-being  of  God  on  earth. 

But  to  return ;  if  this  Catholic  Church,  organized 
by  God  1800  years  ago,  is  in  existence  to  day,  as  I  am 
one  of  those  human  beings,  sinful  and  ignorant  by 
nature,  for  whom  Christ  came  and  for  whom  He 
organized  His  Church,  as  I  need  light  and  Sacra- 
ments and  guidance  from  divinely  appointed  superiors 
as  much  as  any  one  ever  did  in  ancient  Palestine,  or 
Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  or  Rome,  or  Antioch,  I  may  not 
therefore,  pick  and  choose  my  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tions to-day  among  societies  that  any  men  have  since 
organized.  As  God  Himself  organized  a  Church  for 
me  1800  years  ago,  and  promised  to  be  with  It  till  the 


136     Catholicity^  Protestantism  atid  Romanism. 

end  of  time,  I  am  left  with  no  choice  whatever  in  the 
i 
matter.     If  He  had  organized  no  Church  Which  was 

to  exist  continuously,  and  with  Which  He  was  to  be 
till  the  end  of  the  world,  but  had  left  men  to  organize, 
sixteen  hundred  years  afterwards,  as  many  different 
"  churches "  as  they  chose,  I  then  might  select  from 
among  them  any  one  that  pleased  my  fallibility ;  or  I 
might  even  set  up  a  new  one  for  myself;  for  I  would 
have  as  much  right  to  organize  a  new  church  as  an) 
one  else.  But  who  am  I  ?  I  am  not  a  Creator.  I 
cannot  make  either  a  new  Church,  or  a  new  Sacrament, 
any  more  than  I  can  create  a  new  particle  of  matter. 

But,  I  hear  you  say,  what  are  we  to  do  in  case 
God's  CathoHc  Church  should,  on  account  of  the 
human  infirmity  that  is  in  It,  so  decline  as  to  need  a 
reformation  in  some  respects  ?  Ought  we  not  to 
abandon  Its  Ministry  and  Sacraments,  and  go  out 
from  It,  as  did  Luther  ?  But  this  were  to  give  up  faith 
in  God.  First,  never  should  we  cut  ourselves  off 
from  the  life-giving  and  life-sustaining  Sacraments 
Such  infirmities  in  the  Church  as  you  speak  of  can- 
not poison  the  grace  that  God  gives  through  His 
Sacraments,  any  more  than  impurities  in  the  air  can 
alter  the  sweet  tones  of  a  lute  as  they  pass  to  my  ear  j 
for  the  Church  is  perfect  as  well  as  imperfect.     And, 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  137 

secondly,  if  the  Church  ever  needs  a  reformation,  to 
abandon  It  were  to  fly  from  our  post  as  one  of  Its 
forces  of  cure,  and  to  forget  Christ's  promise  to  be 
with  It.  Surely  that  promise  is  sanction  that  It  will 
throw  off  Its  disease  by  the  internal  action  of  Him, 
Who  is  within  It  as  Its  strong  health-giving  constitu- 
tion. 

Reformation  ?  Why  this  world  is  the  realm  of  an 
imperfect  state  of  things  at  the  best.  Perfection  in  all 
things  is  not  to  be  hoped  for  even  in  the  Church. 
How  then  was  such  inevitable  imperfection  and 
liability  to  err  and  to  need  reform  to  be  managed  ? 
God  came  and  organized  it  all  into  His  Divine  Catho- 
lic Church.  I  am  sure  He  knew  best  how  to  deal  with 
and  cure  the  diseases  of  His  Church,  and  that  I  have 
no  need  to  kill  His  Church  on  account  of  Its  falling  ill. 
If  I  feel  that  I  cannot  do  very  much  towards  curing 
Its  diseases,  I  can  at  least  do  something ;  I  can  do 
more  within  It  than  I  can  if  I  were  without  Its  pale. 
And,  at  any  rate,  I  must  not  forget  that  God  remains 
in  His  Church  as  Its  principle  of  recovery.  Surely  I 
should  stay  with  Him,  and  cooperate  with  Him.  If  It 
does  not  in  every  century  keep  on  the  exact  mathemat- 
ical straight  line  of  perfection  in  all  things,  I  am  sure 
that  any  other  plan  than  God's  for  dealing  with  the  im- 


T38      Catholicity^  Frotestafitism  ami  Romanism. 

perfection  would,  in  the  long  run,  only  leave  matters 
infinitely  worse  off  for  time  and  eternity.  A  fool  is 
he  who  thinks  he  can  mend  or  do  better  than  God's 
work.  I  stand  aghast  before  the  result  that  would 
have  happened,  had  it  been  Protestantism  instead  of 
Catholicity  that  the  Goths  and  Vandals  overwhelmed 
and  threw  into  the  trough  of  the  sea.  Europe  would 
have  foundered  and  gone  down. 

Since  God,  then,  has  organized  a  Church  on  earth 
for  the  world,  I  have,  I  say,  no  liberty  whatever  in  the 
matter ;  I  must  belong  to  that  Church.  If  that 
Church  has  Sacraments  I  must  be  baptized  with  Its 
Baptism  and  must  feed  at  Its  Altars,  and  at  no  others. 
I  cannot  countenance  any  others,  even  by  my  pres- 
ence. For  I  should  be  countenancing  by  my  presence 
and  connivance  the  essential  robbery,  the  essential 
murder,  the  essential  slander  and  the  essential  adul- 
tery themselves.  If  that  Catholic  Church  has  rulers 
and  teachers  to  guide  its  members  and  to  dispense  the 
Faith,  of  which  It  was  made  the  divine  receptacle,  I 
must  receive  that  Faith  from  them.  With  filial  trust  I 
must  come  to  that  Church,  strive  to  do  my  duty  ac- 
cording to  Its  directions,  and  with  perfect  assurance, 
leave  all  the  rest  to  God.  As  to  Its  Faith,  It  cannot 
fail ;  but  if  It  fall  ill  in  mere  doctrine  or  manners,  I 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  139 

must  stand  by  It  and  do  my  part  towards  effecting  Its 
cure. 

Having  reached  this  point,  namely,  Catholicity, 
you  will  remember  that  we  paused,  before  proceeding 
to  any  subsequent  questions,  to  examine  the  general 
characteristics  of  the  Catholicity  into  which  we  thus 
found  ourselves  forced. 

In  our  second  Conference  we  found  that  this 
Catholicity  was  a  Life  and  an  Organizer ;  while  Prot- 
estantism was  a  Disorganizer  and  a  Death.  We 
found,  secondly,  that  the  Omniscient  God  in  His  Body 
on  Earth  utters  through  It  to  us  and  to  the  world  the 
Nicene  Creed  as  the  Infallible  Truth,  and  that  He 
sets  forth  certain  other  fundamentals  of  truth.  Now 
faith,  which  comes  in  after  all  this  exercise  of  our 
reason  and  private  judgment,  is  not  an  acquiescence 
in  our  own  opinions,  but  an  humble  reception  of  what 
is  thus  spoken  by  God.  We  believe  the  Creed,  that 
is  to  say,  not  because  we  think  what  is  said  in  it  is 
reasonable  j  not  because  it  suits  our  fancy  ;  not  be- 
cause we  have  studied  its  truths  out  for  ourselves  ; 
but  only  because  God  Himself  speaks  it  daily  to  man 
kind.  But  having  accepted,  without  arguing,  this  in- 
fallible statement  of  supernatural  truth  and  the  way 
of  salvation,  we  are  surely  permitted  afterwards  to 


140      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

examine  and  admire  the  Gift  we  have  received.  Nay- 
it  were  an  indignity  both  to  the  Gift  and  to  the  Giver 
if  we  did  not  examine  it  with  our  grace-enlightened 
reason.  Here,  then,  is  another  function  of  reason  in 
the  Church.  We,  therefore,  then  reverently  analyzed 
the  Creed ;  and  glanced  at  the  havoc  which  Protes- 
tantism had  wrought  in  it  by  tearing  it  into  separate 
pieces. 

In  the  following  Conference,  we  found,  thirdly, 
that  the  Catholic  Church  was  both  Divine  and  human  \ 
and  displayed,  therefore,  not  only  perfections  but  im- 
perfections ;  that  outside  the  Creed  there  was  a  re- 
gion in  the  Church  where  mental  action  was  allowed 
to  play ;  that,  owing  to  certain  human  imperfections, 
a  reformation  of  the  VVestern  part  of  the  Church  be- 
came necessary  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  that  such 
Reformation  took  place  in  England ;  but  that  on  the 
Continent  it  went  beyond  all  bounds,  and  assumed, 
instead,  the  form  of  a  Destruction  of  Catholicity.  We 
found  that  medieval  abuses  were,  as  causes,  inade- 
quate to  account  for  that  fell  and  mad  destruction. 
And  we  traced  the  real  cause  of  Protestantism  to  that 
basilisk  in  the  fallen  human  heart,  which  is  ever  ready 
to  resist  the  principle  of  submission  to  Df'vine  Au- 
thority in  matters  of  faith,  and  which  thirteen  hundred 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  141 

years  of  war  and  turmoil  at  last  availed  to  rouse  intc 
terrible  action. 

We  found,  fourthly,  that  while  fragments  of  truth 
were  dispersed  among  the  religions  and  philosophies 
of  the  ancient  world,  Catholicity  came  in  the  fulness 
of  time,  gathered  these  fragments  together,  and  com- 
pleted the  rounded  sphere  of  truth  for  the  world  \ 
but  that,  sixteen  hundred  years  subsequently.  Prot- 
estantism smote  that  sphere  of  truth  into  fragments 
again,  to  lose  them  in  infidelity. 

We  found,  fifthly,  that  while  Romanism  was  or- 
ganic unity  without  diversity,  and  Protestantism  was 
diversity  without  organic  unity,  Catholicity  was  the 
highest  form  of  unity,  namely,  organic  unity  in  variety. 

And  we  closed  by  glancing  at  the  frightful  solifi- 
dianism  of  Luther  and  his  fellow-heretics,  and  the 
consequent  wreck  of  even  common  morality  in  Prot- 
estant lands  during  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries. 

All  this  time  we  have  been  resting  back,  I  repeat, 
at  the  answer  to  our  Second  Great  Question,  and  ex- 
amining the  general  characteristics  of  the  Catholicity 
into  which  we  had  been  led.  We  have  now  reached 
a  time  when  we  must  look  up  and  go  on.  But,  in  the 
Catholic  pathway  before  us,  the  road  divides  again, 


142      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

and  we  are  face  to  face  with  our  Third  and  last  Great 
Question. 

For  as  I  move  forward  to  unite  myself  with  the 
Catholic  Body,  I  am  suddenly  confronted  with  two 
Bodies,  each  visible,  each  claiming  to  be  Catholic, 
each  claiming  to  have  had  a  continuous  organic  life 
from  the  Apostles,  each  claiming  the  continuous 
Catholic  Ministry,  Faith  and  Sacraments.  They  are, 
indeed,  alike  in  some  respects  ;  they  differ  in  others. 
What  am  I  to  do  ?  There  is  nothing  for  me  to  do  but 
to  pause  before  them,  listen  to  their  claims  and  decide 
between  them. 

In  what  do  they  agree  ?  In  accepting  the  Six 
Great  General  Councils  of  the  first  seven  hundred 
and  eighty  years  of  the  life  of  Catholicity ;  in  holding 
the  Nicene  Creed  ;  in  having  Bishops,  Priests  and 
Deacons  ;  in  the  necessity  of  the  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion ;  in  the  Sacraments  and  Sacramental  System  ;  in 
Baptismal  Regeneration,  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  and 
the  Real  Presence ;  in  prayers  for  the  dead ;  and  in  a 
Ritual  form  of  worship.  Concerning  these  points, 
then,  we  have  nothing  to  do  now.  I  shall  hereafter, 
merely  however  for  brevity's  sake,  include  all  this, 
about  which  there  is  no  question,  under  the  name  of 
The  Nicene  Creed. 


Catholicity  and  Roma?iisvi.  143 

But  over  and  above  these,  Roman  Catholicism  ha* 
erected  certain  additional  dogmas,  which  it  declares 
to  be  necessary  to  salvation.  These,  Anglican 
Catholicity  declares  to  be  either  false,  or  not  neces- 
sary to  salvation. 

The  first  of  these  points  of  difference  which  I  shall 
take  up  is  this,  namely  ;  the  two  bodies,  Roman  and 
Anglican,  differ  as  to  what  constitutes  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  Both  hold  that  the  Church  is  one ;  but 
Rome  sets  up  the  exclusive  theory ;  She  claims  that 
She  alone  is  that  Catholic  church ;  in  other  words 
that  the  church  is  one  like  a  single  individual ;  and 
that  whosoever  is  not  in  agreement  and  communion 
with  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  not  in  the  Catholic 
Church  at  all.  Formerly  She  did  not  claim  this. 
To-day,  since  the  late  Vatican  decree,  She  claims  it. 
Anglican  Catholicity,  on  the  other  hand,  declares  this 
to  be  a  novel  and  modern  idea,  an  alteration  of  the 
ancient  idea.  Anglican  Catholicity  holds  up  the  in- 
clusive theory.  Its  conception  of  the  Catholic  Church 
includes  every  Communion  which,  accepting  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  and  the  Six  General  Councils,  possesses 
also  an  Apostolic  Ministry,  and  therefore  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  therefore  the  Catholic  Sacramental  life  ; 
in  other  words  that  the  visible  Catholic  Church  is  one 


144     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

like  a  family,  rather  than  one  like  a  single  individual 
and  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  by  excommunicating 
and  anathematizing  from  time  to  time  all  who  do  not 
agree  with  him  in  every  additional  dogma,  which 
Rome  from  time  to  time  has  defined,  has  been  placing 
himself  out  of  communion  with  more  and  more  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  has  brought  trouble  and  fear- 
ful discord  into  the  Catholic  Body ;  that  Satan,  de- 
siring to  have  him,  is  indeed  "  sifting  him  like  wheat ;" 
that  he  is  indeed  denying  the  Lord  thrice,  with 
anathemas,  and  curses ;  that  he  is  indeed  impetuous 
and  full  of  zeal,  full  of  the  things  of  this  world,  calling 
down  upon  himself  the  Lord's  solemn  prophecy, 
"  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  ;  thou  art  an  offence  unto 
me ;  for  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God, 
but  those  that  be  of  men  ;"  that  he  has  altered  the  old 
Apostolic  theory  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  ;  and  that 
by  the  side  of  that  old  theory,  the  Catholic  Church, 
as  defined  by  Rome,  shrinks  into  something  like  a 
mere  sect  and  the  prolific  mother  of  sects. 

Catholic  Christendom,  then,  presents  itself  in  two 
vast  and  separate  divisions  ;  namely,  first.  Catholics 
not  in  communion  with  the  see  of  Rome,  and,  secondly, 
Catholics  in  communion  with  that  see.  The  former 
division  comprises  within  itself  the  Greek  Catholics, 


Catholicity  and  Romatiis7n.  145 

the  Armenian  and  Georgian  Churches,  the  Anglicai 
Catholics  and  the  Alt-Catholics — in  all,  something  over 
one  hundred  millions  of  souls.  The  latter  division 
comprises  the  Roman  Catholics  alone  ;  in  all,  about  a 
hundred  and  seventy  millions  of  souls.  So  that  while 
Protestants  number  seventy  millions,  the  Catholics 
number  two  hundred  and  seventy  millions.  The 
former  division  of  Catholics,  comprising  the  Greeks 
and  the  Anglicans  with  others,  we  may  designate 
under  the  generic  title  of  "  Catholics  "  or  *'  Old- Cath- 
olics ;  "  the  latter  division  under  the  generic  title  of 
"  New-Catholics,"  or  Roman  Catholics.  The  Old 
Catholic  Communions  agree  in  asserting  the  paramount 
importance  of  maintaining  the  old  Apostolic  constitu- 
tion which  the  Catholic  Church  presented  in  the  first 
five  centuries,  and  in  maintairiing  that  Roman  Cath- 
olicism is  one  of  the  most  modern  of  Religions. 

Let  us,  then,  to  this  question  of  what  it  is  that 
makes  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Rome 
claims  that  unless  a  person  agrees  with  the  views  in 
addition  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  which  have  been  an- 
nounced by  the  Pope  in  successive  centuries  subse- 
quent to  the  Eighth,  he  is  out  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  not  a  Catholic  at  all.  Bollinger,  Reinkens  and 
thousands  of  others,  Alt-Catholics,  could  not  give  intel- 
7 


146      Catholicity i  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

lectual  assent  to  the  dogma  of  the  Pope's  infalUbility  . 
and  were,  therefore,  excommunicated  from  itself  by  the 
Roman  part  of  the  Church.  But  the  mistake  of  Rome 
is,  that  she  thus  rests  the  unity  of  the  Church  on  some- 
thing which  flows  from  man  ;  namely  the  harmony  of 
men's  wills  and  the  consenting  of  their  minds  with  the 
will  and  mind  of  the  Pope ;  and  that  she  no  longer  rests 
the  unity  on  something  that  flows  from  God.  No :  a 
mere  consenting  together  of  minds  cannot  create  a  su- 
pernatural and  divine  organic  unity.  For  however  two 
men  may  agree  together  in  certain  conclusions  and 
become  friends^  this  cannot  create  them  brothers  and 
of  one  flesh.  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  something 
that  flows  not  from  man  or  anything  man  can  do,  but 
it  is  a  gift  from  God.  As  God  alone  could  make  the 
natural  race  of  man  organically  one  in  Adam,  so  He 
alone  can  make  the  supernatural  Church  organically 
one  in  Christ.  Its  organic  unity  is  derived  from  the 
New  Adam,  Christ,  in  a  certain  way.  We  are  grafted, 
namely,  into  Christ  by  God  in  Baptism,  and  this  unity 
is  then  continued  and  completed  by  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood  in  the  Eucharist,  Which  not  only  incorporate 
Him  into  us,  and  us  into  Him,  but  us  into  each  other 
as  a  one  Communion — a  one  Body.  We  are  one,  not 
because  we  agree   in  intellectual  or  historical  con- 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  147 

elusions ;  but  because  we  are  all  thus  made  one  with 
Christ  He  it  is,  that  is  the  foundation  and  cause  of 
our  unity.  This  organic  unity  descends  from  the 
Head  to  the  Body,  uniting  the  Body  to  the  Head  and 
the  parts  of  the  Body  to  each  other.  Thus  our  true 
supernatural  union  with  one  another  is  not  a  mere 
agreement  of  minds,  but  an  organic  union  made  by 
God,  as  He  unites  us  all  to  the  one  Christ  and  to  each 
other  by  the  Catholic  life-giving  and  curing  Sacraments. 

If  mere  discord  of  men's  minds  could  of  itself 
break  this  organic  Churchly  unity,  then  a  mere  con- 
cord of  men's  wills  and  minds  could  of  itself  create 
such  a  unity.  But  this  would  make  man  able  to  cre- 
ate a  Church,  to  create  organic  unity,  by  something 
going  out  from  himself  And,  therefore,  a  mere 
human  society,  a  temperance  society,  a  political  party, 
agglomerating  together,  could  become  of  itself  as 
organically  one  supernaturally,  as  the  race  is  organi- 
cally one  naturally.  Why,  this  Roman  Catholic  theory 
of  unity  is  the  very  theory  of  Protestantism  itself ; 
and  therefore  the  Pope  is  the  greatest  and  most  mag- 
nificent Protestant  of  them  all.  And  we  are  justified 
in  saying  that  the  Catholic  Church,  as  defined  by 
Rome,  shrinks  into  something  like  a  mere  sect. 

No,  the  Catholic  Church  is  one  like  d  family,  not 


148      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

one  like  a  single  individual.  The  three  or  four  Sisters 
may  unhappily  fall  out  among  themselves ;  they  may 
not  speak  to  each  other ;  they  may  not  eat  at  the 
same  table  with  each  other ;  but  all  this  wrangling 
among  the  Sisters  can  not  go  down  to  the  foundation 
of  the  unity  of  the  Family,  and  break  that ;  they  are 
Sisters  still,  (God  made  them  so,)  though  they  do  not 
speak  to  each  other.  The  boughs  and  branches  of 
the  one  organic  Catholic  tree  may  be  tossed  by  the 
winds  of  mutual  discussion  and  flap  against  each 
other,  but  the  tree  remains  one  tree,  because  all  hold 
by  the  Catholic  Sacraments  to  Christ. 

Catholic  Sacraments,  I  say.  There  may  be  beau- 
tiful ordinances,  but  there  are  no  Catholic  Sacraments 
without  the  Apostolic  Ministr)\  The  Anglican  Apos- 
tolic succession  of  Orders  prior  to  16 17,  cannot  be 
impeached  by  Rome ;  though  heretofore,  that  is  to 
say  before  the  Pope  was  declared  infallible,  it  was 
absolutely  vital  to  her  position  to  impeach  them  if 
possible  ;  by  foul  means,  if  she  could  not  by  fair. 
But  even  if  there  had  been  forty  thousand  irregulari- 
ties in  that  succession  prior  to  161 7,  at  that  date,  at 
any  rate,  Mark  A.  De  Dominis,  Roman  Catholic 
Archbishop  of  Spalato,  went  to  England,  and,  joining 
with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Bishops 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  149 

of  Londjn  and  Ely,  consecrated  George  Monteigne 
and  Nicholas  Felton  to  be  Bishops ;  and  there  is  not 
to-day  a  single  Anglican  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon  in 
all  the  world,  that  cannot  trace  his  Orders  directly  to 
Monteigne  and  Felton,  from  them  to  Mark  A.  De 
Dominis,  and  so  directly  into  the  Roman  succession 
itself.  So  that  if  Rome's  Orders  and  Sacraments  are 
valid,  ours  are  equally  so.  The  two  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether. 

Permit  me  to  quote  here  a  somewhat  lengthy,  but 
pertinent  passage  from  Ffoulkes's  late  letter  to  Arch- 
bishop Manning. 

"  My  Lord,"  he  says,  "  you  have  preceded  me,  yourself, 
in  expatiating  on  the  workings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
Church  of  England  with  your  accustomed  eloquence,  and 
have  not  hesitated  to  attribute  to  Its  members  many 
graces  in  virtue  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  which  you 
allow  they  administer,  on  the  whole,  validly  ;  but  there  you 
stop.  I  feel  morally  constrained  to  go  further  still.  If  I 
had  to  die  for  it,  I  could  not  possibly  subscribe  to  the  idea 
that  the  Sacraments  to  which  I  am  admitted  week  after 
week  in  the  Roman  Communion — Confession  and  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  for  instance — confer  any  graces,  any  priv- 
ileges, essentially  different  from  what  I  used  to  derive  from 
those  same  Sacraments,  frequented  with  the  same  disposi- 
tions, in  the  Church  of  England.  On  the  contrary,  I  go  so 
far  as  to  say,  that  comparing  one  with  another  strictly, 
some  of  the  most  edifying  communions  that  I  can  remem- 
ber in  all  my  life,  were  made  in  the  Church  of  England, 
and  they  were  administered  to  me  by  some  that  have  since 
submitted  to  be  re-ordained  in  the  Church  of  Rome;  a 


150      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

ceremony,  therefore,  which,  except  as  qualifying  them  to 
undertake  duty  there,  I  must  consider  superfluous.  As- 
suredly, so  far  as  the  registers  of  my  own  spiritual  life  carry 
me,  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  any  greater  preserva- 
tives from  sin,  any  greater  incentives  to  holiness,  in  any 
that  I  have  received  since  ;  though  in  saying  this,  I  am  far 
from  intending  any  derogation  to  the  latter.  I  frequent 
them  regularly ;  I  prize  them  exceedingly  ;  I  have  no  fault 
to  find  with  their  administration  or  their  administrators  in 
general.  All  that  I  was  ever  taught  to  expect  from  them 
they  do  for  me,  due  allowance  being  made  for  my  own 
short-comings.  Only,  I  cannot  possibly  subscribe  to  the 
notion  of  my  having  been  a  stranger  to  their  beneficial 
effects  till  I  joined  the  Roman  Communion.  And  I  deny 
that  it  was  my  faith  alone  that  made  them  what  they  were 
to  me  before  then,  unless  it  is  through  my  faith  alone  that 
they  are  what  they  are  to  me  now.  Holding,  myself,  that 
there  are  realities  attaching  to  the  Sacraments  of  an  objec- 
tive character,  I  am  persuaded,  and  have  been  more  and 
more  confirmed  in  this  conviction  as  I  have  grown  older, 
that  the  Sacraments  administered  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land are  realities,  objective  realities,  to  the  same  extent  as 
any  that  I  could  now  receive  at  your  hands  ;  so  that  you 
yourself,  therefore,  consecrated  the  Eucharist  as  truly, 
when  you  were  Vicar  of  Leamington,  as  you  have  ever 
done  since.  This  may  or  may  not  be  your  own  belief. 
But  you  shall  be  one  of  my  foremost  witnesses  to  its  credi- 
bility, for  I  am  far  from  basing  it  on  the  experiences  of  my 
own  soul. 

"  My  Lord,  I  have  always  been  accustomed  to  look  upon 
the  Sacraments  as  so  many  means  of  grace,  and  to  estimate 
their  value  not  by  the  statements  of  theologians,  but  by 
their  effects  on  myself,  my  neighbors  and  mankind  at 
large.  And  the  vast  difference  between  the  moral  tone 
of  society  in  the  Christian  and  the  pagan  worlds,  I  attribute 
not  merely  to  the  superiority  of  the  rule  of  life  prescribed  in 
the  Gospels,  but  to  the  inherent  grace  of  the  Sacraments 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  151 

enabling-  and  assisting  us  to  keep  it  to  the  extent  we  do 
Taking  this  principle  for  my  guide,  I  have  been  engaged 
constantly,  since  I  joined  the  Roman  Communion,  in  insti- 
tuting comparisons  between  members  of  the  Church  of 
England  and  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  generally, 
and  between  our  former  and  our  present  selves  in  particu- 
lar ;  or  between  Christianity  in  England  and  on  the  Conti- 
nent ;  and  the  result  in  each  case  has  been  to  confirm  me 
in  the  belief,  which  I  have  already  expressed,  that  the 
notion  of  the  Sacraments  exercising  any  greater  influence 
upon  the  heart  and  life  in  the  Church  of  Rome  than  in  the 
Church  of  England,  admitting  the  dispositions  of  those  who 
frequent  them  to  be  the  same  in  both  cases,  is  preposterous. 
*  *  *  *  What  I  have  seen  of  Roman  Catholics  myselt, 
since  joining  their  church,  all  points  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion. Till  then  I  knew  them  only  by  report;  which, 
founded  on  prejudice,  was  far  from  being  in  their  favor ; 
and  I  was  horrified  to  find  how  shamefully  it  had  mis- 
represented them.  I  found  them — I  mean  the  educated 
classes — all  that  in  general  estimate,  members  of  a  Chris- 
tian church  should  be  ;  God-serving,  charitable,  conscien- 
tious, refined,  intelligent  ;  and  I  could  discern  nothing 
idolatrous  or  superstitious  in  their  worship,  hot  anything 
at  variance  with  first  principles  in  their  daily  life.  At  home 
or  abroad  I  was  equally  surprised  to  find  them  so  different 
from  what  my  traditional  informants  had  described  them  ; 
with  so  much  to  admire  where  I  had  supposed  there  was 
so  much  to  reprobate.  But  afterwards,  when  my  first 
emotions  consequent  on  this  discovery  had  subsided,  when 
I  came  to  ask  myself  the  question,  are  these  then  the  only 
true  Christians  that  you  have  ever  known  in  your  life ;  and 
till  you  conversed  with  them,  had  you  never  conversed  with 
a  true  Christian  before  ?  I  can  scarely  describe  the  recoil 
it  occasioned  in  me  !  Why  my  own  father  and  mother 
would  have  compared  with  the  best  of  them  in  all  the 
virtues  ordinarily  possessed  by  Christians  living  in  thff 
world  and  discharging  their  duties  conscientiously  towards 


152      Catholicity^  Protestantism  a?id  Romanism. 

God  and  their  neighbors,  in,  through,  and  for  Christ.  *  *  ♦ 
Then  I  have  had  relatives  and  friends,  in  numbers,  mem 
bers  of  the  Church  of  England,  whose  homes  I  will  under- 
take to  say  are,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  thoroughly 
Christian  as  any  to  be  found  elsewhere ;  and  it  would  be 
sheer  affectation  or  hypocrisy  in  me,  were  I  to  pretend  the 
contrary ;  or  else  to  claim  for  my  own  friends  and  relatives 
any  peculiar  excellence  distinguishing  them  from  average 
specimens  of  the  Anglican  body.  For  a  calm,  unpresum- 
ing,  uniform  standard  of  practical  Christianity,  I  have  seen 
nothing  as  yet  amongst  ourselves  in  any  country  superior 
to  that  of  the  English  parsonage  and  its  surroundings. 
Go  where  I  will,  I  am  always  thrown  back  upon  one  of 
these  as  the  most  perfect  ideal  of  a  Christian  family  ;  a 
combination  amongst  its  members  of  the  highest  intelli- 
gence with  the  most  unsullied  purity  and  earnest  faith  I 
ever  witnessed  on  earth. 

"  If  it  be  said  that  faith  and  integrity  of  purpose  make 
members  of  the  Church  of  England  what  they  are  without 
the  Sacraments  in  mature  life,  by  what  argument,  I  should 
like  to  know,  can  it  be  proved  that  it  is  not  to  their  faith 
and  integrity  of  purpose  solely  that  members  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  are  indebted  likewise  for  all  the  progress 
they  make  ?  The  only  test  of  the  efficaciousness  of  the 
Sacraments  appreciable  by  common  sense  lies  in  their  in- 
fluence upon  conduct.  If,  therefore,  it  were  capable  of 
proof,  as  distinct  from  assertion,  which  it  is  not,  both  that 
all  the  Sacraments  administered  in  the  Church  of  England 
save  one,  were  shams,  and  all  administered  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  were  without  exception  realities,  how  comes  it 
that  we  are  not  incomparably  more  exalted  characters  our- 
selves than  we  were  formerly,  or  that  Roman  Catholic 
countries  on  the  Continent  are  not  incomparably  more 
penetrated  to  the  core  with  Christianity  than  England  }  " 


This  gift  of  Sacramental  unity  to  Catholicity  is 


Catholicity  afid  Roma?iism.  153 

divine.  And  so  long  as  the  Apostolic  Ministry  and 
Sacraments  continue,  man  cannot  destroy  the  unity 
that  God  makes  through  them,  any  more  than  man 
can  destroy  a  particle  of  matter.  Men  may,  indeed, 
do  acts  towards  each  other  that  are  inconsistent  with 
it  \  but  that  will  be  fallible  man's  inconsistency  with 
what  God  has  done,  not  man's  destruction  of  what 
God  has  done.  For  let  us  advance  a  step,  if  you 
please. 

This  divine  gift  of  unity  requires  of  us,  of  course, 
a  corresponding  duty;  namely,  mutual  love  and 
unison  of  wills  among  those  who  are  organically  one. 
And  the  natural  expression  of  this  unison  of  wills  and 
mutual  love  is  intercommunion  between  all  parts  of 
the  one  Catholic  Church.  But  if,  as  is  unhappily  the 
case,  intercommunion  is  temporarily  suspended  be- 
tween the  parts  of  the  Church,  so  that  the  hundred 
and  seventy  millions  do  not  communicate  with  the 
hundred  millions,  the  underlying  unity  coming  from 
the  action  of  God,  that  binds  them  together  into  one 
Catholic  Church,  is  neither  forfeited  nor  broken. 

The  hundred  millions  of  Old  Catholics,  Greeks, 

Russo-Greeks,  Georgians,  Armenians,  Alt-Catholics 

and  Anglicans,  hold  that  Rome's  exclusive  claim  to 

be  the  whole  Church,  is  not  only  a  most  pregnant 

7* 


154     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

error,  fraught  with  untold  evils,  but  also  an  exhibition 
of  the  most  stupendous  arrogance  and  pride.  There 
is  positively  no  warrant  for  it  either  in  Scripture  or 
in  history.  The  sacramental  theory  has  warrant  in 
both. 

It  has  warrant  in  Scripture;  for  saith  St.  Pau 
touching  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  "  For  as  the 
body  is  one  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the 
members  of  that  one  body  being  many,  are  one  body ; 
so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  spirit  we  are  all  baptized 
into  one  body.''  And  saith  St.  Paul  again,  touching 
the  Eucharist,  "  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  Communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  For  we  being 
many  are  one  bread  and  one  body ^  for  we  are  all  partak- 
ers of  that  one  bread."  In  both  these  passages  the 
cause  of  the  unity  is  declared  to  be  the  Sacraments, 
"  For  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body."  "  We  are 
one  bread  and  one  body.  For  we  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread."  Again  to  the  Galatians,  "  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have 
put  on  Christ,  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus." 
But  where  in  Scripture  is  there  a  passage  declaring 
that  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church  is  created  in  any 
other,  and  antagonistic  way  ?  The  Scripture  indeed, 
hav'ng  set  up  the  Sacramental  unity  of  the  Catholic 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  155 

Church,  could  not  declare  also  an  antagonistic  theory 
of  unity  without  stultifying  Itself. 

This  sacramental  theory  has  warrant  too  in  history 
as  well  as  in  Scripture.  For  the  exclusive  theory  of 
Rome  was  resisted  from  the  time  it  made  its  first  faint 
appearance  in  the  Catholic  Church  until  to-da}'.  In 
the  early  centuries  the  whole  Eastern  part  of  the 
Catholic  Church  would  not  listen  to  it  an  instant.  As 
it  grew  in  strength  and  insolence  during  the  darkest 
time  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  whole  Eastern  or  Greek 
part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  at  that  time  by  far  the 
largest,  most  enlightened  and  numerous  part,  with 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  at  its  head,  rose  and 
excommunicated  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  all  his  ad- 
herents. Thus  four  out  of  the  five  great  Patriarchates 
of  the  world  cut  off  the  one  Western  or  Roman 
Patriarchate.  The  Roman  theory  then,  left  to  itself, 
easily  gained  additional  strength  and  self-assertion  in 
the  West,  until  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  Catholic 
part  of  the  church  in  England  could  endure  it  no 
longer.  On  it  went  increasing,  until  in  the  nineteenth 
century  the  German,  French,  and  Swiss  Alt-Catholics 
could  bear  the  strain  not  another  day.  So  the  Roman 
part  of  the  Church  cut  itself  off  first  from  the  whole 
Eastern  part  of  the  church,  then  from  the  Anglican; 


156      Catholicity,  Protestantism  a7id  Romanism. 

and  then  from  the  Alt-Catholic  part.  And  the  Vati 
can,  forsooth,  with  its  Protestant  theory  of  unity,  sits 
oblivious,  with  a  kind  of  self-conscious  innocence, 
among  these  turmoils  of  the  centuries  which  it  hath 
introduced  into  the  Catholic  Church.  So  a  man 
brings  powder  into  a  fair  and  stately  mansion,  blows 
it  up,  and  then  sits  down  in  one  miserable  torn  room 
and  goes  off  into  a  revery  on  the  loveliness  of  a  whole 
and  unharmed  mansion.  Protestantism,  whether  out- 
side of  Rome,  or  sitting  crowned  with  the  tiara  on  the 
Papal  throne  itself,  is,  indeed,  not  a  life  and  an  or- 
ganizer but  a  disorganizer  and  a  death. 

The  Pope  of  Rome,  although  he  does  not  by  any 
means  reach  back  into  the  earlier  centuries  of  the  life 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  is  yet  an  individual  of  some 
considerable  length.  And  it  certainly  is  not  an  edify- 
ing spectacle  to  find  him  forgetting  to-day  what  he 
said  yesterday  about  this  very  matter  of  Sacramental 
unity.  To-day,  since  the  Vatican  Decree  of  Infalli- 
bility, it  is  Rome  alone  that  is  the  Catholic  Church  \ 
but  yesterday,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
Pope  Gregory  Xth,  in  summoning  the  Council  of 
Florence,  at  which  an  attempt  was  made  to  heal  the 
difficulty  between  the  Greek  or  Eastern  and  the  Latin 
or  Western  parts  of  the  Church,  uses  this  language 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  157 

concerning  the  Catholic  Church,  namely :  "  Because 
of  our  extreme  bitterness  in  beholding  the  rent  of  the 
Catholic  Church  foreshadowed  in  the  net  of  Peter,  the 
fisherman,  that  brake  for  the  multitude  of  fishes  it  en- 
closed J  we  do  not  say  divided  as  regards  Its  Faith  *  * 
but  notoriously  and  lamentably  divided  as  regards  Its 
faithful  m€mbers"  To-day,  it  is  Rome  alone  that  is 
the  Catholic  Church  ;  but  yesterday,  that  is  to  say,  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  Pope  Eugenius  IVth  said  to  his 
envoys,  "  It  is  for  the  union  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern Church,  so  long  and  so  ardently  desired  by  us, 
ihat  you  are  sent ;  "  or,  as  he  told  the  Greek  Catho- 
Jics,  when  he  despaired  of  such  restoration  of  inter- 
communion, "In  what  shall  we  be  benefited  if  we 
fail  to  unite  the  Church  of  God.''  Ah,  instead  of 
claiming,  then,  that  Rome  alone  is  the  Catholic 
Church,  he  asserts  that  the  Catholic  Church  of  God 
included  other  Communions  besides  Rome,  the  four 
other  Patriarchates  besides  his  own  ;  and  that,  instead 
of  its  being  true  that  whosoever  was  not  in  commu- 
nion with  him  was  out  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he 
admits  that  he  himself  was  not  in  communion  with 
the  whole  Catholic  Church.  In  the  fifteenth  century, 
at  any  rate,  he  included  in  the  Catholic  Church  of 
God,  as  Anglicans  do  to-day,  the  Old  Catholics  of 


158      Catholicity y  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

that  time,  who  stood  stiffly  against  him  for  the  ancient 
constitution  of  that  Church. 

Indeed  Ffoulkes,  himself  at  the  time  a  Roman  Cath- 
olic, writing  before  the  decree  of  Infallibility,  says  as 
follows :  viz.,  "  The  formal  teaching  of  the  Popes,  ever 
since  the  rupture  (/.  e.  between  the  Greek  Catholics  and 
the  Roman  Catholics,)  has  been  that  the  church  is  di- 
vided as  regards  her  members;  and  that  there  are 
Churches  forming  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  which 
are,  and  have  been  for  ages,  out  of  communion  with  the 
R'^man  See  *  *  *  "J-  They  most  unquestionably  have 
conceded  that  what  we  call  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  not  constituted  the  whole  Church  ;  and 
that  they  themselves  have  not  spoken  at  the  head  of 
the  whole  Church  since  the  rupture  between  the  Greek 
and  Roman  parts  of  Catholicity."  "  Furthermore," 
continues  this  Roman  Catholic  writer,  "  as  one  of  the 
most  warmly  debated  points  in  modern  times  has  been 
the  power  of  the  Popes  and  their  true  relation  to  the 
Church,  who  can  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  absence  of 
any  formal  assertion  on  their  part  that  the  terms 
*  Catholic  '  and  '  Roman  Catholic '  are  strictly  convert 
ible  ;  with  the  fact  that  they  have  never  striven  to 
appropriate  the  term  *  Catholic,'  pure  and  simple,  to 
their  own  Communion,  but  have  commonly  called  it 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  159 

themselves,  and  been  content  that  it  should  be  called 
by  others,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  being  its 
strict  and  adequate  title."  In  accordance  with  this, 
what  says  the  Creed  of  Pius,  according  to  which  every 
pervert  to  Rome  has  to  pronounce  his  profession  of 
faith  ?  "  I,  N —  N — ,  with  a  firm  faith,  believe  and 
profess  all  and  every  one  of  those  things  which  are 
contained  in  that  creed,  which  the  Holy  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  maketh  use  of."  The  Missal,  too,  is 
called  not  the  Catholic,  but  the  Roman  Missal.  Mr. 
Ffoulkes  continues:  *' Where,  indeed,  is  the  part  of 
Christendom  seriously  purporting  to  call  itself  Thi 
Catholic  Church  in  these  days?  Roman  Catholic, 
Anglo-Catholic,  Orthodox  Eastern,  all  in  their  degree 
seem  influenced  by  some  hidden  spell  to  abstain  from 
arrogating  to  themselves  or  attributing  to  each  other 
the  Epithet  "  Catholic  "  without  qualification,  as  it  is 
applied  to  the  Church  in  the  Creed." 

However,  gentlemen,  this  was  written  by  a  Roman 
Catholic  prior  to  1870.  But  since  it  was  written,  the 
Pope  has  been  declared  infallible  \  and  that  has 
changed  matters  with  Rome  very  much.  The  decree 
of  Papal  Infallibility  rids  her  of  a  load  of  troubles  she 
formerly  had.  In  order  to  relieve  herself  of  the  fearful 
charge,  and  fact   too,  of  being  not   only   an   openly 


i6o      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

schismatical  body  in  England,  but  also  heretical  as 
violating  provisions  of  the  First  Six  General  Councils, 
it  has  heretofore,  I  repeat,  been  of  vital  importance  to 
her  to  impeach,  if  not  by  fair  then  by  foul  means,  the 
validity  of  Anglican  orders.  The  position  of  the  Greek 
Catholic  Church,  whose  faith  and  orders  it  had  not 
been  vital  to  her  to  impugn,  was  nevertheless  another 
ugly  and  unanswerable  fact  against  her.  But  no  mat- 
ter for  all  this  now.  Since  the  Vatican  decree,  and  ac 
cording  to  that  decree,  Rome  solely  is  the  whole 
Church ;  and  every  thing  else,  however  Catholic  it  may 
have  been  before,  is  to  her  a  mere  sect.  For  since 
that  decree  no  unimpeachability  on  the  head  of  ortho- 
doxy, of  valid  orders,  of  jurisdiction,  or  of  practical 
working,  any  longer  makes  the  least  difference  to  her. 
She,  with  her  now  infallible  Pope,  claiming  to  be  the 
only  Christian  Church,  can  enter  upon  the  jurisdiction 
of  any  non-papal  Bishop,  whether  Anglican  or  Greek, 
and  set  up  her  Episcopal  Thrones  as  the  only  Thrones 
having  Christian  authority.  The  Pope  with  one  plunge 
of  his  spurs  up  to  their  rowels  has  sent  the  Roman 
steed,  at  least  in  its  own  estimation,  bounding  clear 
out  of  all  ugly  facts  of  the  past  and  present,  in  which 
it  had  been  tumbling  entangled.  Rome  is  in  the  serio- 
comic attitude  of  one  who,  finding  that  History  over- 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  i6l 

rams  her  claims,  leaps  away  from  History.  However, 
the  past  is  nevertheless  secure ;  and  History  is  a  sad 
tell-tale,  and  an  invincible  advocate.  And  as  Rome 
thus  bounds  away  from  it  all,  the  hundred  millions 
gaze  at  her  act  with  sorrow,  not  unmingled  with  quiet, 
courteous,  but  triumphant  mirth.  The  Patriarch  of 
Rome  had  reached  a  point,  under  the  developments 
of  hostile  discussion,  where  he  was  compelled  to  break 
either  with  Romanism  or  with  History. 

Ah,  what  a  dream  of  the  distraught  it  is,  for  Rome 
to  imagine  for  an  instant  that  she  can  turn  aside 
God's  Hand  from  its  work,  that  she  can  shut  off  the 
action  of  His  own  appointed  Sacraments  as  they  go 
forth  to  bind  men  into  organic  unity  with  His  Christ 
and  with  each  other  j  that  she  can  smite  that  unity  as 
with  a  painted  wooden  sword,  and,  by  her  Protestant 
theory,  that  the  mere  concord  of  men's  intellects  can 
make  a  one  organic  Church,  or  their  mere  discord 
break  It,  sunder  what  God  Himself  hath  united.  If 
Protestantism  is  the  sin  of  essential  adultery,  Roman- 
ism is  the  essential  sin  of  divorce. 

But  this  argument  of  Catholicity's  touching  the 
Sacramental  unity  of  the  Church  is  not  yet  quite  fully 
developed.  For  were  it  taken  without  any  qualifica- 
tion whatever,  it  would  be  incomplete  and  prove  too 


1 62     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

much.  There  is  something  else  to  be  said  as  to  dis- 
cord of  mind  in  the  Church,  or  all  in  the  Church  were 
left  in  utter  confusion. 

Most  decidedly,  a  heretic,  one  who  presumes  to 
deny  anything  that  God  Himself  speaks  in  the  Creed, 
forfeits  the  Sacraments.  And  most  decidedly,  on 
that  forfeiture,  Christ  i.  e.,  God,  Who  makes  the 
Sacramental  unity  of  the  Church,  hath  the  power 
and  the  right  to  break  what  He  hath  made,  by  excom- 
municating the  heretic. 

But  the  outward  visible  part,  or  Body  of  Christ, 
through  which  He  acts,  is  the  Catholic  Church  ;  it  is 
not  the  Pope  alone  that  is  Christ's  Body  Mystical. 

Now  for  Christy  thus  through  the  Catholic  Church, 
His  Body,  to  cut  off  a  heretic  from  Its  unity,  because 
that  heretic  will  not  submit  to  what  God  has  said,  is 
one  thing ;  but  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome^  who  surely  is 
not  Jesus  Christ,  acting  clearly  at  his  own  instance, 
to  attempt  to  cut  a  man  off  because  that  man  will  not 
submit  to  his  views,  uttered  on  his  own  responsibility 
from  time  to  time,  and,  in  the  language  of  the  Infalli- 
bility Decree,  **  not  because  of  the  consent  of  the  rest," 
even  of  the  Roman  part  "  of  the  Church,'*  is  quite 
another,  and  a  very  different  thing. 

Were  the  Pope  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  were  the  whole 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  163 

Catholic  Church  summed  up  in  the  Pope,  were  he,  as 
he  stands  in  the  Vatican,  the  incarnation,  the  visible 
presence  of  God,  the  Body  of  God  on  Earth,  then  his 
excommunication  would,  of  course,  be  Christ's  action. 
But  Catholicity  hath  denied  and  resisted  these  Papal 
claims  from  their  very  first  appearance.  We  shall  prove 
by  and  by  that  these  claims  are  baseless.  No,  it  is  the 
Church  that  is  the  incarnation  of  Christ  on  Earth,  and 
not  the  Pope.  And  as  it  was  Christ  and  not  the  Pope 
that  made  the  Sacramental  unity  of  the  Church,  so  it 
is  Christ  alone  in  His  Church,  and  not  the  Pope,  that 
has  power  to  break  an  individual  or  a  body  of  individ- 
uals away  from  it. 

The  whole  Church,  that  is  to  say  Christ,  hath  ex- 
communicated Protestantism.  But  the  Roman  com- 
munion has  not  been  excommunicated  by  the  whole 
Church,  but  only  by  the  Greek /d^r/  of  the  Church.  It 
is  therefore  not  excommunicated  from  Catholicity  at 
all.  And  the  Greek  Church  has  not  been  excommu- 
nicated by  the  whole  church,  but  only  by  the  Roman 
part  of  the  Church  ;  the  Greek  Church  is  therefore  not 
excommunicated  from  Catholicity  at  all.  And  so  of 
the  Anglican  and  Alt-Catholic  Communions.  Herein 
then  is  seen  the  difference  between  the  divisions  of  the 
Catholic  Church  and  the  utter  separation  of  all  Prot- 


164     Catholicity^  P?'otestantism  and  Romanism, 

estant  sects  from  the  Catholic  Church.  The  latter  are 
schismatic  bodies ;  the  different  parts  of  the  Catholic 
Church  are  not  in  schism,  but  are  suffering  under  the 
evils  of  a  disruption  of  Catholic  concord. 

But,  you  will  say,  suppose  now,  that  when  Christ  in 
his  Catholic  Church  has  cut  off  a  heretic,  that  heretic 
carries  away  with  him  the  Apostolic  Orders  and  Sacra- 
ments ;  what  then  ?  Ah,  gentlemen,  let  history  answer. 
When  Christ  has  cut  off.  He  has  invariably  brought 
to  naught  a  really  heretical  sect,  notwithstanding  its 
Sacraments.  History's  answer  is,  It  is  hopeless  thus 
to  attempt  to  defeat  God  by  carrying  away  the  Sacra- 
ments. Where  are  the  Arians,  the  Pelagians,  the 
Apollinarians,  the  Macedonians,  the  Nestorians,  the 
Eutychians,  and  innumerable  bodies  that  went  off  with 
the  orders,  some  of  those  bodies  of  vast  size  too  ?  God 
speedily  ended  them ;  and  their  very  names  are 
strange  to  our  ears. 

But  compare  such  rapid  death  and  oblivion  of 
what  God  hath  cut  off,  with  the  unharmed  and  con- 
tinuous life  and  vigor  through  the  ages  of  what  the 
Pope  alone  has  tried  to  cut  off,  if  you  would  have  a 
commentary  upon  a  real  excommunication  from  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  contrast  with  an  excommunica- 
tion which  is  a  mere  sham  and  travesty.     Behold  the 


Catholicity  and  Romanistn.  165 

vast  Greek  Catholic  Church  with  its  thousand  years  of 
mighty  life,  and  its  enormous  growth  and  vigor  since 
the  separation  between  the  East  and  West ;  behold, 
too,  the  Anglican  Catholic  Church.  A  sect,  from  the 
time  it  is  cut  off  from  the  Catholic  Church,  never  re- 
covers j  it  withers ;  its  career  is  always  downwards  to 
death.  But  the  Anglican  Church  shows  that  it  has 
the  Catholic  life.  For  even  after  having  been  over- 
whelmed with  Protestants  in  pulpit,  Episcopal  Throne, 
Theological  Seminary,  and  pew,  she  is  nevertheless 
recovering ;  for  she  is  rooted  in  the  Catholic  Tree  ; 
and  against  no  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  can  the 
gates  of  Hell  prevail. 


FIFTH    CONFERENCK. 

Constitution  of  the  Church,  in  Its  Priestly,  Sacri- 
ficial, Prophetic,  and  Regal  Functions,  according 
TO  Catholicity.  The  Church's  Government  Episco- 
pal, NOT  Papal.  Gallicanism  ,  a  Logical  Mistake. 
Hierarchy  within  the  Episcopate.  Papal  Supremacy 
not  sustained  by  Scripture. 

Gentlemen, 

A  second  fundamental  issue  between  Catholicity 
and  Romanism  is  this,  namely :  Catholicity  claims 
that  Romanism  is  the  slow  but  stubborn  development 
of  an  absolute  monarchy  in  the  Latin  part  of  the 
Church,  unknown  to  early  days,  and  the  prolific 
mother  of  many  other  deviations  from  Catholicity. 
The  efforts  of  Rome  to  alter  the  government  of  the 
Church  from  Episcopal  to  Papal,  have  been  resisted 
by  the  rest  of  the  Church  from  the  first.  The  entire 
contest  between  Catholicity  and  Romanism  has  not 
really  changed  since  it  began.  But  since  the  Vatican 
decree  of  1870,  it  has  been  practically  narrowed  to 
the  above  single  issue.  For,  if  the  Papal  Supremacy 
be  right,  the  entire  Catholic  Church  must,  of  course; 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  167 

accept  it ;  and,  with  it,  all  the  rest  of  Romanism. 
The  Papal  Supremacy  is,  therefore,  the  fortress  of 
Rome's  position.  If  that  stands,  she  stands ;  if  that 
falls,  the  war  is  over. 

Wher  the  Bishop  of  Rome  sent  letters  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  inviting  him  to  attend 
the  late  Vatican  Council  in  1870,  in  declining  the  in- 
vitation for  himself  and  his  brother  Bishops,  and  de- 
clining to  open,  or  even  to  lift  from  the  table  where 
the  papal  delegates  had  placed  it,  the  elegant  case  in 
which  the  invitation  was  enclosed,  the  venerable 
Patriarch  expressed  in  the  following  words  the  fixed 
attitude  of  all  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church  not  in 
communion  with  the  Papal  see,  viz : 

*'  Since  it  is  manifest  that  there  was  a  Church  in 
existence  ten  centuries  ago.  Which  held  the  same  doc- 
trines in  the  east  as  in  the  west,  in  the  Old  as  in  the 
New  Rome,  let  us  each  recur  to  that ;  and  see  which 
of  us  has  added  aught,  which  has  diminished  aught 
therefrom.  And  let  all  that  may  have  been  added  be 
struck  off,  if  any  there  be,  and  whatever  it  be  ;  and 
let  all  that  has  been  diminished  therefrom  be  re- 
added,  if  any  there  be,  and  whatever  it  be.  And  then 
we  shall  all,  unawares,  find  ourselves  united  in  the 
same  symbol  of  Catholic  Orthodoxy." 


1 68      Catholicity^  Protestantistn  and  Romanism. 

In  a  similar  strain,  and  with  almost  identical 
language,  did  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  also  reply 
to  the  Roman  messengers  that  conveyed  a  like  in- 
vitation to  him  and  to  his  brother  Bishops.  He 
declined  communion  with  the  see  of  Rome,  and  with 
all  churches  adhering  to  that  see ;  and  he  declined 
even  meeting  in  council  with  them,  till  the  Pope 
should  recede  from  his  usurpations.  All  was  cour- 
teous and  diplomatic,  for  each  eastern  Patriarch  re- 
ceived formally,  and  in  full  Canonicals,  the  messen- 
gers of  the  Patriarch  of  Rome,  but  all  was  politely 
firm. 

In  the  investigation  of  this  vital  issue  between 
Catholicity  and  Romanism,  let  me  first  present  to  you 
the  ancient  constitution  of  the  Church  according  to 
Catholicity;  after  which  we  will  view  the  radically 
different  autocracy  which  Rome  has  succeeded  in 
imposing  on  her  adherents,  and  which  she  insists  that 
the  rest  of  the  Catholic  Church  shall  accept.  We 
begin,  then,  with  the  Catholic  theory. 

Jesus  Christ  is  four-fold  ;  He  is  Priest,  Sacrifice, 
Prophet,  and  King.  First,  then,  according  to  Catho- 
licity, there  is  but  one  Priest,  Jesus  Christ.  He  alone 
can  offer  a  Sacrifice  ;  He  alone  can  forgive  sins. 

Now  one  purpose  for  which  He  is  here  within  the 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  169 

visible  Catholic  Cliurch  is  to  act  as  Priest.  But  if,  as 
Priest  He  had  remained  invisible,  His  Priestly  Func- 
tion would  not  have  adapted  itself  to  the  conditions 
of  time  and  space,  nor  to  the  wants  of  those  who  are 
in  the  Church  of  time  and  space.  To  make  Himself 
accessible  to  us  as  the  sole  Priest,  He  must  break  out 
into  Priestly  visibility.  He  takes  to  Himself  there- 
fore, a  special  visible  Priestly  Body  within  the  Church. 
Now  if  the  Catholic  Church  consisted  of  but  one 
small  parish,  He  need  only  have  taken  to  Himself 
a  single  earthly  Priest  for  an  outward  visible  Body, 
through  which  His  Priestly  Function  could  act.  But 
as  the  earth  is  extensive.  His  Priestly  Function,  on 
striking  its  medium  and  becoming  visible,  breaks  up 
into  many  earthly  Priests,  for  the  manifold  distribu- 
tion and  practical  application  of  itself  all  round  the 
globe.  Thus  it  is  that  the  One  Priest  is  enabled  audi- 
bly to  pronounce  the  words  of  pardon  and  of  blessing, 
of  oblation  and  of  consecration,  every  where  simul- 
taneously. Nevertheless,  all  these  earthly  Priests 
form,  after  all,  only  one  organic  Body ;  a  single  Body 
that  has  a  manifold  presence  in  the  Church ;  a  single 
Body  the  Soul  of  which  is  the  Priestly  Function  of 
Jesus  Christ.  For  each  separate  earthly  Priest  is  but 
a  reiteration,  on  account  of  the  conditions  of  space,  of 


1 7©     Catholicity^  Protestantism  atid  Romanism, 

every  other  Priest,  as  "one  only  of  innumerable 
shadows  cast  by  the  same  object."  Being  reiterations 
of  each  other,  Catholic  Priests  are  all  equal.  Then, 
in  this  one  Body  of  the  earthly  Priesthood,  in  order 
to  avoid  differences  in  action,  and  the  conflicts,  which 
the  actual  multiplicity  of  Priests  on  earth  would 
occasion,  certain  ecclesiastical  regulations  have  from 
the  first  been  observed,  restraining  each  Priest  to  a 
local  district.  In  short,  in  like  manner  as  Christ 
stands  in  the  world,  God  incarnate  in  the  Great  Body 
of  the  Church,  so  He  stands  within  the  Church  itself, 
a  Priest,  yea  rather  the  Priest  incarnate  and  visible  in 
the  great  one  Sacerdotal  Body,  an  incarnation  within 
an  incarnation,  a  visible  body  within  a  visible  body. 

Every  earthly  Priest,  therefore,  holds  his  power  to 
exercise  Priestly  functions  not  from  his  Bishop,  but 
directly  from  God.  He  preaches,  offers  the  Sacrifice, 
baptises,  and  pardons,  in  virtue  of  the  power  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  given  to  him.  The  Bishop  is, 
indeed,  the  superior  and  the  pastor  of  the  Priest,  but 
the  Priest  is  not  a  simple  vicar  of  the  Bishop.  To 
claim  that  he  is,  is  to  take  a  first  step  towards  Roman 
ism.  Men,  though  they  may  be  channels  through  which 
power  comes,  are  never  the  source  whence  it  comes. 
It  is  Christ  in  His  Church  that  is  this  source.     And 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  171 

Christ,  through  His  instrument  the  Bishop,  gives  the 
Sacerdotal  power  directly  to  the  Priest  at  Ordination. 
Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  claims  that  the  plenitude 
of  all  power  is  in  the  Pope;  that  the  Bishops  are 
merely  vicars  of  the  Pope,  and  the  Priests  merely 
vicars  of  the  Bishops. 

Secondly.  As  there  is  but  one  Priest,  so  there  is 
but  one  Sacrifice,  Jesus  Christ.  As  He  is  a  *'  Priest 
forever,"  the  Apostle  tells  us  "  it  is  of  necessity  "  that 
He  should  "  have  somewhat  to  offer  "  forever.  Being, 
then,  the  one  Priest  in  Heaven  and  on  earth.  He  pleads 
His  one  Sacrifice  simultaneously  in  Heaven  and  on 
earth  before  the  Father.  On  the  Heavenly  Altar 
He  ever  stands,  "  The  Lamb  as  It  had  been  slain." 
This  great  and  perpetual  Sacrificial  transaction  of  the 
"  Priest  forever,"  on  striking  the  medium  of  space 
and  time,  adapts  itself  to  the  conditions  of  space  and 
time.  Like  His  Priesthood  it.  too,  breaks  out  into 
visibility  in  the  visible  Church. 

Now  if  the  Church  consisted  of  but  one  small 
parish,  there  would  be  needed  but  one  visible  Altar 
and  one  visible  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  for  the  realiza- 
tion to  us  of  the  one  great  perpetual  Sacrificial  trans- 
action of  Jesus  Christ.  But,  as  before,  the  earth  is 
extensive.     When,    therefore,   Christ's    act,   as    He 


172      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

perpetually  displays  His  glorious  wounds  before  God 
the  Father,  strikes  the  medium  of  space  and  time,  it 
breaks  out  into  the  many  Altars  of  space  and  the  re- 
peated Eucharists  of  time,  in  order  to  meet,  by  mani- 
fold distribution,  the  wants  of  that  part  of  the  one 
Church  which  is  subject  to  the  conditions  of  extended 
space  and  of  continuous  time. 

I  do  not  know  how  it  is  with  you,  gentlemen,  but 
to  my  faith  the  distinctions  that  are  drawn  between 
Christ's  own  Body  in  Heaven  and  Christ's  Sacra- 
mental Body  on  earth,  as  though  they  were  in  some 
mysterious  way  two  separate  existences,  the  one  im- 
movable in  an  astronomic  Heaven  and  the  other 
movable  and  coming  through  space  to  the  earth,  are 
incomprehensible  jargon.  They  are  born  of  the  Con- 
tinental Reformation  ;  they  are  a  logical  denial  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church  Militant  and  Triumphant ;  they 
suppose  Eternity  to  be  simply  a  very  long  Time,  in- 
stead of  something  essentially  different  from  Time; 
and  they  suppose  Heaven  to  be  a  very  far  and  very 
fair  portion  of  space,  instead  of  something  super- 
natural, and  essentially  different  from  space.  Church 
Militant  and  Triumphant,  instead  of  occupying  two 
separate  portions  of  space  quite  distant  from  each 
other,  is  a  One  Body,  existing,  however,  under  two 


CathoHcity  and  Romanism,  173 

conditions.  It  stands,  as  a  whole,  in  the  immedi- 
ate Presence  of  God  the  Father  ;  It  is,  as  such  un- 
divided Body,  standing  in  the  Presence  of  God 
the  Father,  at  once  within  space  and  not  within 
space  J  It  exists  equally  in  Time  with  its  conditions 
and  in  Eternity  with  its  different  conditions  ;  It  is  at 
the  same  time  visible  and  invisible.  Its  Priest  and 
and  Its  Sacrifice  exist,  therefore,  under  the  same  two 
conditions;  within  space,  namely,  and  not  within 
space,  in  Time  and  also  in  Eternity.  Its  Sacrifice  is 
therefore,  at  once  invisible  because  it  exists  within 
the  Heavenly  conditions,  and  visible  because  it 
exists  within  the  earthly  conditions,  these  differing 
conditions  not  dividing  the  one  Sacrifice.  So  that, 
after  all,  at  all  the  Altars,  all  over  the  earth,  and  all 
through  tinie,  it  is  not  many  separate  Eucharists, 
many  separate  Sacrifices.  No,  it  is  all  one  only 
Food  ;  one  only  everflowing  Blood  ;  one  perpetual 
Eucharist,  one  single  perpetual  Sacrifice,  Jesus  Christ. 
Thus  all  the  combined  earthly  Altars,  though  many, 
are  after  all  one  only  Altar  standing  at  once  in  Heav- 
en and  on  earth  ;  and  moreover,  as  such  Altar,  they 
all  form  simply  the  one  visible  part  of  the  Heavenly 
Altar,  as  inseparable  from  It  as  a  body  is  from  its 
soul.     So  that  when  we  look  at  our  earthly  Altar,  we 


174      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romamsm, 

are  merely  looking  at  an  outward  and  visible  part  of 
the  great  alone  Altar  of  the  great  alone  Priest,  where- 
on He  stands,  both  visible  and  invisible,  "  The  Lamb 
as  it  had  been  slain."  If  I  may  be  permitted  a  figure 
to  make  the  idea  perhaps  clearer ;  though  our  earthly 
Altars  are  many,  yet  they  stand,  so  to  speak,  all 
round  an  unbroken  circumference,  the  common  center 
of  which  is  the  Heavenly  Altar  where  The  Lamb  is. 
So  that  when  we  each  kneel  before  and  gaze  at  our 
earthly  Altar,  in  whatever  church,  we  are  all  adoring 
with  the  angels  and  looking  in  directly,  and  as 
through  a  circumference  of  lenses,  each  upon  the 
same  Heavenly  Altar  at  the  common  centre  of  the 
whole  circle,  where  stands  our  Sacrifice  and  our  God, 
Who,  for  our  sake  in  space  and  time,  comes  out  into 
Sacrificial  visibility  all  round  the  circumference. 
Thus  the  God-man,  whom  we  behold  and  adore  at  our 
several  earthly  Altars,  is  the  God-man  Who  is  on  the 
Heavenly  Altar ;  and  in  adoring  Him  at  our  earthly 
Altars  we  are  adoring  Him  on  the  Heavenly  Altar  ;  for 
we  of  the  Church  Militant  are  as  much  in  the  Presence 
of  God  the  Father,  as  are  the  angels  of  Heaven. 

Permit  me  to  say  here,  parenthetically,  even 
though  it  be  extraneous  to  the  current  of  our  present 
thought,  a  word  or  two  touching  a  difficulty  that  may 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  175 

have  presented  tself  to  your  minds.  Catholicity,  you 
will  say,  declares  that  the  Sacrifice  presented  before 
the  Father  at  Its  Altars  is  the  Body  of  Christ ;  and 
yet  It  also  declares  that  the  Church  is  the  Body  of 
Christ;  and  is  there  not  here  an  inconsistency  ?  But 
the  mental  hesitancy,  into  which  these  two  state- 
ments throw  the  non-catholic  mind,  clears  itself 
away  at  once,  when  we  consider  the  absolute  unity 
of  Christ,  and  the  unity  of  His  action.  For,  He 
is  the  One  Priest  offering  Himself  as  the  One 
Sacrifice.  If  we  are  to  join  Him  in  pleading  that 
Sacrifice,  we  must  become  a  part  of  Him  ;  other- 
wise it  would  not  be  Himself  offering  Himself, 
His  Body  offering  His  Body.  Thus  He  is  the 
Church  as  Offerer,  and  He  is  at  the  same  time  the 
Eucharist  as  the  Thing  offered.  The  apparent  incon- 
sistency grows  inevitably  out  of  the  marvelous  fact 
that  Christ  is  both  Priest  and  Victim.  Thus,  to  deny 
that  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  must 
end  logically  in  the  Unitarian  denial  that  Christ  is 
both  Priest  and  Victim. 

Thirdly.  Our  Lord  is  also  Prophet,  that  is  to  say 
Teacher.  For,  as  a  Prophet  is  one  who  states  the 
underlying  truths  and  laws  in  accordance  with  which 
events  happen,  he  is  primarily  a  teacher,  and   only 


17^3      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

subordinately  a  foreteller.  When  this  Teaching 
Function  of  our  Lord  strikes  the  medium  of  space  and 
time,  it  likewise  comes  out  into  visibility  within  the 
Church,  breaking  into  many  visible  earthly  preachers 
for  the  manifold  distribution  and  practical  application 
of  itself  to  all  parts  of  the  earthly  Church.  So  that 
the  combined  Catholic  pulpits  are  the  one  outward 
Body  of  the  one  Teacher,  Christ. 

Fourthly.  But  Christ  is  not  only  Priest,  Sacrifice 
and  Prophet.  He  is  also  King,  or  Ruler.  If,  as 
Ruler  in  the  Church,  He  remained  a  mere  impalpa- 
ble influence,  the  invisibility  of  this  Regal  power 
would  not  only  be  inconsistent  with  the  visibility  of 
the  Church  Itself,  and  of  His  other  functions  in  It, 
but  it  would  leave  all  order  to  the  incertitude  of 
men's  differing  but  honest  impressions  as  to  what 
ought  to  be  done,  as  each  would  think  he  was  guided 
in  some  mystical,  transcendental  way  aright.  Christ 
would  no  more  have  adapted  Himself  as  such  Ruler 
to  the  conditions  of  time  and  space  or  to  the  needs 
of  those  in  the  Church  of  time  and  space,  than  He 
would  if  He  had  remained  invisible  as  a  Priest,  or  as 
a  Sacrifice,  or  as  a  Teacher.  No,  all  is  harmonious. 
His  Church  Catholic  is  a  complete  and  consistent 
system.     His  Ruling  Prerogative,  therefore,  on  strik 


Catholicity  and  Ro7nanism,  177 

ing  the  medium  of  time  and  space,  comes  out  also 
into  visibility. 

If  the  Church  were  only  one  small  diocese,  His 
Ruling  Function  would  need  for  its  outward  earthly 
body  through  which  to  act,  one  earthly  Bishop  only. 
But,  again,  the  earth  is  extensive.  Christ's  Ruling 
Prerogative,  therefore,  on  striking  its  medium,  adapts 
itself  to  the  conditions  of  space,  by  breaking  into 
many  Bishops,  for  the  manifold  distribution  and  ap- 
plication of  itself  within  the  Church  all  round  the 
world. 

Now  just  here  is  the  root  idea  of  the  Episcopal 
government  of  the  Catholic  Church  as  opposed  to  the 
Papal  autocratic  government.  For,  as  there  is  in  the 
Church  but  one  Priest  visible  and  invisible,  Jesus 
Christ,  so  there  is  in  the  Church  but  one  King  or 
Bishop  visible  and  invisible.  All  the  earthly  Bishops 
together  form  the  one  visible  organic  Kingly  Body, 
of  which  the  inward  and  inseparable  living  Soul  is 
the  Ruling  Function  of  Christ.  For  each  separate 
earthly  Bishop  is  but  a  reiteration,  on  account  of  the 
conditions  of  space,  of  every  other  Bishop,  as  one  of 
"  innumerable  shadows  cast  by  the  same "  Kingly 
object  j  and,  being  reiterations  of  each  other,  they 
are  all  equal.  Every  Bishop,  therefore,  holds  his 
8* 


178      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

power  to  exercise  episcopal  functions,  not  from  the 
Pope,  but  directly  from  Christ. 

It  is  in  the  Combined  Episcopate,  then,  all  over 
the  world,  that  we  have  the  One  Bishop,  Christ, 
standing  everywhere  visible  to  us  as  King ;  just  as  in 
the  combined  Priesthood  we  have  the  one  Priest, 
Christ,  standing  everywhere  visible  as  Priest.  It  is 
in  the  Combined  Episcopate,  then,  that  we  have  the 
Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  not  in  any  single  one 
of  the  Bishops.  For  the  single  Bishop  of  Rome  to 
set  himself  up,  regardless  of  all  the  rest,  as  the  alone 
Vicar  of  Christ,  is  a  tremendous  deviation  from  the 
Apostolic  constitution  of  the  Church.  It  is  to  de- 
stroy that  Regal  Body  on  earth  in  which  the  great 
Ruler,  Christ,  stands  visible  as  Ruler  everywhere 
throughout  the  Church.  It  is  treason  and  Regicide. 
It  puts  a  usurper  on  the  throne  in  place  of  Jesus 
Christ's  own  royal  Body.  It  is  an  attempt  to  change 
most  radically  the  government  of  the  whole  Church 
from  Episcopal  to  Papal. 

You  will  see  at  a  glance,  for  truth  is  always  con- 
sistent with  itself,  that  the  Great  General  Councils  of 
all  the  Bishops,  which  for  centuries  and  centuries  con- 
vene(i  as  the  undoubted  ultimate  courts  of  appeal, 
were  inconsistent  with  the  modern  theory  that  ultimate 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  179 

appeals  rest  in  the  Pope.  You  will  see  that  those  Gen- 
eral Councils  followed  harmoniously,  and  naturally, 
and  truthfully,  from  the  original  government  of  the 
Catholic  Church  by  the  Combined  Episcopate. 

Indeed  Gregory  Great,  twelve  centuries  ago,  far 
from  putting  himself  above  the  Combined  Episcopate, 
said  that  he  honored  Ecumenical  Councils  equally 
with  the  four  Gospels.  And  Leo  III,  in  the  eighth 
century,  assured  the  Frankish  Bishops  when  they 
came  to  him,  that,  far  from  setting  himself  above  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council  of  381,  who  made  additions  to 
the  Nicene  Creed,  he  did  not  venture  to  put  himself 
on  a  par  with  them ;  and,  therefore,  would  not  pre- 
sume to  make  the  addition  to  the  creed  which  those 
Frankish  Bishops  suggested.  Consider,  too,  these 
words  of  the  oath  which  the  Popes  pronounced  on  the 
day  of  their  inauguration  for  centuries  ;  "  I  promise  to 
honor  and  to  venerate  faithfully  the  Holy  General 
Councils,  to  teach  that  which  they  have  taught,  to 
observe  that  which  they  have  decreed,  and  to  condemn 
with  heart  and  mouth  that  which  they  have  con- 
demned." St.  Augustine  says  that  a  plenary  Council 
always  remains  as  final  arbiter  to  annul  any  sentence 
of  any,  even  the  greatest  Bishop.  Pope  Sylvester  II. 
says,  '*  If  the  Pope  listens  not  to  the  Church,  he  ought 


i8o      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

to  be  treated  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 
Pope  Leo,  in  addressing  the  fathers  of  the  Fourth 
General  Council,  a.  d.  451,  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage, viz:  "As  the  very  Christian  Emperor  has 
wished  an  Episcopal  Council  to  the  end  that  error  may 
be  abolished  by  a  more  authorized  judgment^  I  have  sent 
my  brother  Julian,  Bishop,  Renatus,  Priest,  and  my 
brother  Hilary,  Deacon,  who  will  represent  me  at  the 
Council,  and,  by  a  sentence  common  with  you,  will 
establish  that  which  will  be  pleasing  to  the  Lord." 
Surely  here  St.  Leo  rests  the  final  authority  in  an 
Ecumenical  Council.  Again,  the  Robber  Council  of 
Ephesus  had  been  held,  sustaining  Eutyches.  There- 
upon the  Pope  urged  upon  the  Emperor  the  sum- 
moning of  a  new  Council  that  should  be  truly  Ecu- 
menical. Theodocius,  deceived,  and  believing  that  the 
canonical  rules  had  been  observed  at  the  Robber 
Council,  did  not  wish  to  consent  to  a  new  Council  \ 
"  Because,"  said  he,  *'  after  the  solemn  decision  of  the 
Council,  it  is  not  possible  to  resort  to  a  new  judg- 
ment." Surely  the  demand  of  St.  Leo  and  the  refusal 
of  the  Emperor  prove  that  both  of  them  rested  the 
final  authority  in  a  truly  General  Council.  The  Ilfth 
Council  in  553,  uses,  moreover  the  following  language  : 
"There   is   no   other   means   (except   by  a   General 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  i8i 

Council)  of  knowing  the  truth  in  the  Faith.  Each  has 
need  of  the  aid  of  his  brother,  following  the  Scripture, 
'  Where  two  or  three  are  met  together,'  "  etc.  This 
Council  judged  and  condemned  Pope  Vigilius  as  a 
heretic.  The  sixth  General  Council,  in  680,  anathe- 
matized Pope  Honorius  for  being  a  heretic.  In  768 
Pope  Constantine  II  was  deposed  by  a  Council.  At 
the  Eighth  Council,  in  869,  after  the  letters  of  Pope 
Nicholas  were  read,  the  legates  asked  of  the  Council, 
at  the  end  of  its  fifth  session,  "  What  does  the  Coun- 
cil say  of  the  things  it  has  just  heard  ?  Is  this  letter 
canonical  or  not  t "  The  Council  replied,  "  It  is 
conformable  to  the  canons,  it  is  regular."  This,  too, 
is  evidence  that  the  Pope  deferred  to  the  Council. 

Here,  then,  in  the  long  course  of  nine  centuries, 
we  behold  the  supremacy  of  Councils.  The  law  of 
the  Church  is  the  decision  of  the  Combined  Episco- 
pate. In  the  first  eight  Councils  each  Bishop  writes 
the  phrase  "  Definiens  subscripsi."  It  is  not  till  we 
come  to  the  Roman  Latcran  Councils  that  the  phrase, 
*'  Sacro  approbante  concilio,"  makes  its  appearance. 

But,  furthermore,  the  very  struggles  of  the  Popes 
in  later  centuries  to  rise  superior  to  the  dicta  of  even 
a  Roman  Council,  is  a  standing  and  unanswerable 
argument  that  this  claim  of  Papal  Supremacy  is  novel 


1 82      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

When,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  whole  Latin  Church 
was  excommunicated  for  its  errors  by  the  rest  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  still  the  idea  of  the  supreme  power 
of  the  Combined  Episcopate  in  General  Council  as- 
sembled so  lingered  even  in  this  Latin  part,  that  Pope 
Gregory  Xllth  himself  appealed  to  a  General  Council, 
as  "  that,  by  which  and  in  which  the  acts  of  a  Pope 
are  accustomed  to  be  judged."  The  Latin  Council 
of  Constance  as  late  as  1414,  having  summoned  John 
XXIII,  deposed  him,  and  afterwards  Benedict  XIII, 
also,  from  the  Papacy.  Vienna  judged  Boniface 
VIII.  At  its  Fifth  session  the  Council  of  Constance 
passed  the  following  decree,  viz  :  "  The  sacred  synod 
of  Constance,  making  a  General  Council,  legitimately 
assembled  to  the  glory  of  Almighty  God  for  the  ex- 
tirpation of  schism  and  for  the  union,  and  the  refor- 
mation of  the  Church  in  Its  Head  and  in  Its  mem- 
bers, wishing  to  execute  more  easily,  more  surely, 
more  abundantly,  and  more  freely  this  union  and  this 
reformation,  orders,  defines,  discerns  and  decrees  as 
follows :  This  Council,  legitimately  assembled  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  making  a  General  Council,  and  repre 
senting  the  Catholic  Church,  holds  immediately  from 
Jesus  Christ  a  power,  which  every  person  of  what- 
ever condition  and  dignity  he  may  be,  even  papal,  is 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  183 

obliged  to  obey  in  that  which  concerns  the  Faith,  the 
extirpation  of  the  present  schism  and  the  reformation 
of  the  Church  in  Its  Head  and  in  Its  members.  Who- 
ever, of  whatever  condition  or  dignity  he  may  be, 
even  papal,  shall  refuse  obstinately  to  obey  the 
statutes,  ordinances  and  precepts,  that  this  Holy 
Council,  or  any  other  legitimate  Council  assembled, 
has  made,  or  shall  make,  upon  the  aforesaid  matters, 
or  upon  any  thing  which  regards  them,  if  he  does  not 
repent,  shall  be  punished  as  he  deserves  ;  and  there 
shall  be  employed  against  him,  if  it  be  necessary, 
other  lawful  means."  The  Council  of  Basle  also  de- 
clared that,  as  the  Church  had  through  Councils  fre- 
quently deposed  Popes  when  convicted  of  errors  in 
faith,  while  no  Pope  had  ever  pretended  to  condemn 
the  Church,  the  superiority  of  a  Council  over  a  Pope 
was  clear.  In  short  the  struggle,  even  in  the  Latin 
part  of  the  Church  after  the  rupture  between  the  East 
and  the  West,  between  its  own  Councils  and  its  Pope 
as  to  which  was  supreme,  continued  with  shifting  suc- 
cesses until  at  last  it  is  only  in  modern  days  that  the 
Galilean  School  has  gone  down,  and  Papal  Supremacy 
over  a  Council  has  finally  succeeded  in  setting  itself 
up.  Who  shall  claim,  then,  that  the  Papal  Supremacy 
is  not  a  modern  fiction  ?     In  the  Council  of  Florence 


1 84     Catholicity y  Frotestatitism  and  Romanism. 

in  1438,  Bessarion,  an  eminent  Greek,  perhaps  the 
most  learned  and  illustrious  of  all  the  Greeks  present, 
said,  "  We  know  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Roman  Church  ;  but  we  know,  also,  that  these  rights 
have  limits.  Whatever  may  be  the  power  of  the 
Roman  Church,  it  is  less  than  that  of  the  General 
Council  and  of  the  Universal  Church." 

Indeed,  gentlemen,  show  me  in  the  past  thousand 
years  of  Catholicity  where  the  rising  waves  of  Papal 
ambition  have  beaten,  and  I  will  show  you  where  the 
rock-bound  continent  of  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ  has 
always  stood  in  resistance ;  nay,  where  the  very  Rock 
Himself,  Jesus  Christ,  in  His  true  visible  Kingly 
Body,  the  Combined  Episcopate,  has  always  stood 
unmoved,  dashing  back  those  Papal  billows. 

Let  me  say  here,  incidentally,  before  I  come  to 
the  main  argument  about  the  Rock,  that  it  is,  indeed, 
absurd  on  the  face  of  it,  absurd  a  priori^  absurd  at  its 
very  first  mention,  that  Christ  should  have  promised 
to  found  His  Church  on.  a  mere  man,  instead  of  on 
the  God-Man.  It  is  Protestantism,  this  founding 
churches  on  men  ;  on  Calvin,  or  Peter,  or  Luther,  or 
Wesley.  And,  therefore,  again,  the  Pope  is  simply  a 
superb  Protestant  clothed  in  canonicals.  Indeed  St 
Paul,  in  his  celebrated   rebuke   to   the   Corinthian^ 


Catholicity  and  Romanisin.  1S5 

where  he  says,  "  Now  this  I  say,  that  every  one  of 
you  saith  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of 
Peter,  and  I  of  Christ,"  makes  such  very  choice  of 
Peter  as  the  one  peculiar  note  and  test  of  Catholic 
fellowship  and  of  covenant  with  God,  a  mark  of 
schism,  rather  than  of  Catholicity. 

If  Anglican  Catholics  were  alone  in  denying  the 
Papal  Supremacy,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  Catholic 
Church  were,  and  had  always  been  against  us,  we 
might  seem  to  be  setting  little  stress  on  the  great 
blessings  of  Catholic  concord  and  of  uninterrupted 
intercommunion.  But  let  Anglican  Catholicity  be 
blotted  from  the  map,  what  nevertheless  is  to  be 
done  with  the  great  East,  with  four  out  of  the  five 
great  Patriarchates  of  Catholicity.?  "Are  the  un- 
changed and  unchangeable  Churches  of  Asia,  of 
Greece,  and  of  Russia  to  be  taken  also  out  of  the 
history  of  the  world  and  of  the  Church?"  They 
have  denied  from  the  first,  and  still  do  deny,  the 
Papal  Supremacy.  "When  the  whole  of  the  East, 
holding  equally  with  ourselves  the  great  principle  of 
unity,  resists,  nevertheless,  a  dogma,  which  another 
great  portion  of  the  Church  enforces  as  the  only  con- 
dition of  communion  with  Herself,  then  we  are  sure 
the  breach  rests  not  with  that  portion  which  denies, 


1 86     Catholicity^  Frotestantis7n  and  Ro?nanism, 

but  with  that  which  asserts  so  great  and  unjustifiable 
a  claim  "*  as  the  Papal  Autocracy. 

We  have  found  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ  not  in  a 
single  Bishop,  but  in  all  the  Bishops  combined.  Now 
the  Romanist  charges  us  with  imagining  that  the 
Church  has  no  earthly  Head.  The  "  Catholic 
Review "  of  last  week,  in  an  article  on  the  First  of 
these  Conferences,  repeats  this  charge.  Indeed  it  is 
one  of  the  stock  fallacies  with  which  Romanists  easily 
confound  the  ill-instructed  Churchman.  The  charge 
is  not  true.  The  fallacy  is  this.  Because  we  do  not 
accept  the  Papal  Supremacy,  we  therefore  believe  the 
Catholic  Church  to  be  a  Headless  Church  so  far  as 
this  earth  is  concerned.  This  will  do  for  an  unwary 
Protestant,  to  induce  him  to  pass  unwittingly  by  the 
very  question  at  issue  and  into  the  Roman  conclu- 
sion ;  but  it  will  not  do  for  a  Catholic.  The  Roman- 
ist can  always  handle  a  Protestant  with  great  ease  \ 
and  the  reason  why  the  Romanist  is  so  bitter  against 
what  are  called  Ritualists,  is  because  he  cannot  move 
them  an  inch  \  that  is  to  say,  if  the  so-called  Ritualist 
is  a  true  Catholic,  and  not  an  Evangelical  who  is  tern- 
Dorarily  dancing  through  a  little  mere  Ritualism  on 
his  steady  way  from  latitudinarianism  to  the  other  ex 
♦  The  Rev.  W.  J.  E.  Bennett. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  187 

treme  of  Rome.  If  Catholics  are  all  going  to  Rome, 
as  is  charged  by  the  ignorant,  then  it  is  most  mar 
velous  that  the  very  points  which  Catholics  hold  are 
the  very  points  which  have  caused  Dullinger  and  the 
Alt-Catholics  violently  to  tear  themselves  away  from 
Rome,  in  which  they  were  born  and  reared,  which 
they  have  loved,  and  in  which  they  lived,  some 
of  them  to  ripe  and  grave  old  age.  Such  men  as 
Pusey,  Liddon,  Carter,  and  the  Catholic  school  gen- 
erally, refuse  to  be  judged  by  the  case  of  a  few 
giddy-headed  persons,  who,  waking  up  to  the  misery 
of  Protestantism,  stagger,  dazzled  and  blinded,  away 
from  Low-Churchmanship,  caper  through  a  little  mere 
Ritualism,  and  then  tumble  over  into  Rome,  enthusi- 
astically sure,  superciliously  confident,  tumultuously 
certain  that  they  have  gotten  at  the  bottom  of  this 
prodigious  and  complicated  question  that  for  over  a 
thousand  years  has  divided  the  Church. 

Of  course,  gentlemen,  the  Church  has  a  Head. 
That  is  not  the  question  at  all.  But  the  question  is, 
in  what  that  Head  consists  ;  whether  in  the  Combined 
Episcopate,  or  in  one  only  of  its  Bishops.  It  is  an 
undeniable  fact,  and  it  settles  the  question,  at  any 
rate,  between  Catholicity  and  Romanism,  beyond  all 
peradventure,  that,  in  the  era  of  the  first  six  great 


1 88     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

General  Councils,  it  was  the  Combined  Episcopate 
alone,  and  not  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  that  was  the  ulti- 
mate authority  and  Great  Vicar  of  Christ  in  questions 
of  faith  and  of  discipline ;  it  is  an  undeniable  histor- 
ical fact,  that  nothing  doubtful  was  for  centuries 
settled  in  the  Church,  no  matter  what  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  might  say,  till  the  Combined  Episcopate  spoke 
in  Ecumenical  Council. 

But  let  me  complete  the  idea  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church.  You  will  re- 
member that  I  stated,  while  I  was  speaking  of  the 
body  of  the  Priesthood,  that,  in  order  to  avoid  those 
conflicts  which  the  multiplicity  of  actual  human  Priests 
would  otherwise  occasion,  certain  ecclesiastical  regu- 
lations have,  not  perhaps  from  the  very  first,  but  from 
a  very  early  date,  been  observed,  restraining  Priests 
to  local  districts. 

Now  carry  that  same  idea  over  Into  the  Episco- 
pate. You  will  perceive  that,  if  there  were  no  analo- 
gous ecclesiastical  regulations  for  the  Episcopate, 
there  could  not  fail  to  arise  confusions,  and  collisions 
in  action  among  the  earthly  Bishops,  owing  to  their 
actual  multiplicity.  And  so  there  have  been,  not  fronx 
the  very  first,  but  from  quite  early  days,  ecclesiastical 
regulations  restraining  Bishops  to  local  districts. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  189 

Nor  is  this  all.  There  has  been  a  hierarchy  within 
the  Episcopate  from  very  early  days  ;  consisting  of 
Bishops,  Arch-Bishops,  Patriarchs  and  a  Primate  as 
Head  of  the  whole.  There  is  not  and  never  has  been 
the  slightest  issue  between  Rome  and  us  about  such 
a  hierarchy  ;  and,  moreover,  the  great  Anglican  Bishops 
and  controversial  writers  have,  with  consenting  voice, 
admitted  the  Primacy  of  Rome.  In  fact  the  Church 
must  have  primacies.  Every  province  must  have  its 
head  ;  it  is  the  Arch-Bishop,  or,  as  we  call  him  in 
America,  the  Senior  Bishop.  Every  Patriarchate  or 
vast  Communion  like  the  Anglican  must  have  its 
head  ;  it  is  the  Patriarch,  or,  as  with  us,  the  Arch- 
Bishop  of  Canterbury.  And,  were  intercommunion 
restored  between  all  parts  of  the  Church,  the  whole 
Combined  Episcopate  must  have  its  chief  Primate; 
and,  according  to  the  decrees  of  the  General  Councils, 
that  chief  Primate  would  of  course  be  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  But  the  trouble  between  Catholicity  and 
Romanism  arises  outside  of  this,  and  is  two-fold. 

For,  first,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  not  been  satis- 
fied to  rest  in  his  ancient  Primacy  within  the  Episco- 
pate, but  has  striven,  instead,  to  usurp  the  autocracy 
over  the  Episcopate.  Instead  of  being  first  among 
equals,  he  claims,  that  is  to  say,  to  hold  the  same 


190      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism* 

relative  attitude  to  all  Bishops,  that  any  Bishop  holds 
to  his  Priests.  This  is  virtually  an  effort  to  create  a 
fourth  order  in  the  Ministry.  He  claims  the  ap- 
pointment of  all  Bishops  ;  that  every  cause  of  moment 
shall  go  up  to  himself ;  that  he  shall  have  the  right  to 
suspend,  condemn  or  acquit  at  his  own  will  j  instead  of 
receiving  law  and  faith  from  the  Church,  he  claims  to 
give  the  law  and  the  truth  to  the  Church.  In  short, 
it  is  a  demand  that  the  legislative,  executive  and 
judicial  powers  in  the  Church  be  centered  in  himself, 
and  that  he  be  responsible  to  no  one.  For,  the 
Vatican  decree  declares  that  the  Pope  holds  not 
merely  the  chief  part,  but  the  "  entire  fulness  of  the 
supreme  power.'*  Now  this  is  what  Catholicity 
resists. 

Let  us  take  an  illustration.  We  need,  for  instance 
a  President  of  the  United  States.  But  let  any  Presi- 
dent draw  the  sword,  overthrow  the  constitution,  and 
usurp  the  powers  of  an  absolute  Oriental  Autocrat,  let 
him  presume  to  appoint  for  each  State  its  Governor, 
to  supervise  or  repeal  its  state,  county  and  municipal 
codes,  to  reverse,  if  be  please,  all  decrees  of  the  courts 
state  or  federal,  and  to  declare  his  own  irresponsible 
will  to  be  law  for  all,  and  the  American  citizen  or 
State  that  would  not  resist  to  the  end  such  usurpation, 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  191 

would  be  traitor  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 
unworthy  the  name  of  American.  In  the  State,  better 
civil  war  than  such  submission  ;  in  the  Church,  better 
non-intercommunion  than  a  similar  submission.  No, 
no  ;  the  Catholic  must  stand  loyal  to  the  original 
constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church,  if  he  would  be 
loyal  to  that  Church.  He  cannot  be  loyal  at  once  to 
the  Pope  and  to  the  Church;  for  the  Primacy  of 
Rome  is  one  thing  ;  but  the  Papal  Supremacy  is  a 
vastly  different  thing. 

Rome  cries  to  the  Greeks  and  Anglicans,  "  If  you 
are  not  Protestants,  (and  it  seems  you  claim  not  to 
be,)  yet  you  are  not  Catholics.  For  the  Catholic  is 
one  who  obeys  the  Pope ;  and  he  who  obeys  him  not 
is  heretic,  excommunicated,  and,  if  not  a  Protestant,  he 
must  be  an  unclassified  man."  But  thus  replies  one 
who  is  a  Catholic  indeed  :  "  The  true  Catholic  is  he 
who  obeys  primarily  the  Church,  inasmuch  as  She 
exercises  the  authority  which  Jesus  Christ  has  con- 
ferred upon  Her.  As  to  the  Pope,  because  he  is 
the  Patriarch  of  the  West,  and  the  first  of  the  other 
Patriarchs,  the  true  Catholic  can  obey  him  on  one 
only  condition,  that  he  shall,  in  his  turn,  obey  as  a 
good  Catholic  all  the  laws  of  the  Church.  If  the 
Pope  transgress  these  laws,  if  he  violate  the  constitu- 


192      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romafiism. 

tion  established  by  Christ,  if  he  derogate  the  Councils 
of  the  Church,  if  he  attribute  to  himself  in  the  name 
of  God  a  power  which  he  holds  neither  from  God  nor 
from  the  Church,  then  he  separates  himself  from  the 
Church.  He  is  no  more  Chief  Primate,  but  solely 
chief  Disturber.  In  this  case  the  true  Catholic  is  he 
who  resists  him ;  who  appeals  to  the  authority  to 
which  the  true  Primate  ought  himself  to  be  submis- 
sive, viz:  the  authority  of  the  Church  united  in  a 
Council  really  ecumenical."* 

Innocent  IVth  taught,  indeed,  that  one  ought  not 
to  obey  an  order  of  the  Pope  containing  a  heresy,  or 
threatening  to  shake  the  whole  organization  of  the 
Church ;  and  that,  a  Pope  being  able  to  fail,  it  is 
necessary  to  say,  *'  I  believe  that  which  the  Church 
believes,  and  not  that  which  the  Pope  believes." 
Pius  IXth,  however,  differed  with  Innocent  IVth. 

No,  the  see  of  Rome,  though  holding  the  Primacy, 
can  rightly  have  no  such  jurisdictional  power  as  would 
divide  or  limit  the  full  power  of  the  Combined  Epis- 
copate, which  must,  according  to  ancient  constitution, 
remain  the  supreme  earthly  Head  of  the  Church. 
And  herein,  by  the  way,  consisted  the  fatal  error  of 
the  Gallicans.  Finding,  namely,  that,  for  purposes  of 
*  Michaud. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  193 

administrative  order,  the  Church  had  in  the  early 
centuries  developed  Archbishops,  Exarchs  and  Patri 
archs,  each  with  jurisdictional  power  within  the  Epis- 
copate, the  Gallicans  went  so  far  as  to  admit  that 
the  chief  Primate  should  himself  also  have  analogous 
jurisdictional  power  over  the  whole  Episcopate  and 
over  the  whole  Church. 

But  they  failed  to  see  that  at  this  very  point  the 
fundamental  Apostolic  Constitution  of  the  Church 
was  attacked.  We  must  go  up  in  the  last  resort 
through  the  jurisdictional  powers  of  Bishops,  Arch- 
bishops and  Patriarchs  to  the  Kingship  of  Christ  as 
represented  on  earth,  first  by  the  Board  of  Apostles 
to  whom  He  gave  all  power,  and  then  by  the  Com- 
bined Episcopate  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
And  we  fall  into  a  dissolution  of  the  order  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  if  we  go  still  further  up,  and  over 
the  corpse  indeed  of  the  Combined  Episcopate,  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  as  the  final  authority  in  the  Church. 
This  false  view  of  the  Primacy  has  been  the  logical 
destruction  of  Gallicanism.  There  is  indeed  no  real 
holding  ground  between  the  Papal  and  the  Catholic 
or  Episcopal  theories;  and  Gallicanism,  which  at- 
tempted to  stand  between  the  two,  was  stricken  ab 
initio  with  a  mortal  disease.  Its  complete  overthrow 
9 


194      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

was  only  a  question  of  time.  After  having  fatally 
admitted  that  the  Pope  could  veto  the  acts  of  a  Gen- 
eral Council,  the  Galileans,  though  historically  correct 
in  resisting  the  further  claims  of  the  Pope  to  supreme 
autocracy,  were  logically  incorrect.  The  Jesuits  on 
the  other  hand,  though  historically  incorrect,  were 
logically  correct.  The  question  was,  to  what  shall  we 
go  up  in  the  hierarchy  as  final  authority  ?  The  Jes- 
uits say,  to  the  Pope  ;  the  Catholics  say  to  the  Epis- 
copate j  but  the  Gallicans,  going  as  I  have  said  be- 
yond the  Catholics,  strove  to  pause  at  a  point  below 
the  Jesuits.  "Not  to  the  Pope  alone,"  said  they, 
"nor  yet  to  a  Council ;  but  to  the  Pope  and  a  Coun- 
cil." But,  alas,  though  they  took  a  milder  view  of  the 
Pope  than  did  the  Jesuits,  they  were  after  all  suffi- 
ciently Papists ;  they  were  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
Romanists  and  not  Catholics ;  and  Romanism  is  a 
logical  torrent,  which  will  either  overwhelm  and 
destroy  those  who  are  in  it,  or  will  sweep  them  to  its 
extreme  logical  conclusions.  The  Galilean  theory 
was  not  only  weak  logically,  but  impracticable  also. 
Normally  it  would  leave  the  Church  in  an  inextrica- 
ble difficulty.  For  we  must  have  a  final  deciding 
court  in  the  Church.  Now  we  can  have  this  either  in 
a  Pope  or  in  a  General  Council.     But  if  this  court  is 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  195 

to  be  found  in  a  co-ordination  of  the  Pope  and  a 
Council,  then,  should  these  two  differ  from  each  other, 
the  question  on  which  they  differ  would  be  left  unde- 
termined, and  the  Church  plunged  into  confusion. 
No,  the  Church  can  have  but  one  earthly  Head. 
Either  the  Jesuits  or  the  Catholics  are  right.  It  were 
a  monstrosity  if  It  were  double-headed.  However, 
Gallicanism  is  now  dead,  and  probably  forever.  The 
Gallicans  should  have  reinforced  the  Anglicans  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  They  have  met  with  their  inevita- 
ble punishment. 

But,  as  has  been  said,  the  trouble  between  Catho- 
licity and  Romanism  is  two-fold.  Secondly,  thtn, 
Rome  not  only  claims  Supremacy  over  instead  of 
honorary  primacy  within  the  Episcopate,  but  that 
the  Pope  is  thus  supreme '"  by  divine  right;"  mean- 
ing by  this  phrase,  "by  Christ's  personal  appoint- 
ment." Catholicity  denies  this.  Catholicity  admits 
freely  that  St.  Peter,  on  account  of  age  and  zeal  and 
what  we  call  character,  was  a  man  of  prominence 
among  the  Apostles ;  freely  admits  that  he  had,  if  you 
please  to  call  it  so,  a  primacy  of  honor.  This,  al- 
though not  distinctly  stated  in  Scripture,  is,  neverthe- 
less, possible  perhaps  to  be  inferred  from  Scripture. 
Indeed  there  never  were  twelve  men  yet,  that  among 


196      CaihoUiity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

them,  some  were  not  stronger  characters  than  others, 
and  one  the  strongest  of  all.  But  this  is  a  very  differ- 
ent thing  from  a  Primacy  of  honor  in  the  Church  \ 
and  a  more  vastly  different  thing  still  from  a  Primacy 
of  Functions  and  powers  over  the  Episcopate  through 
all  time.  Catholicity  asserts  that  even  Rome's  Pri- 
macy of  honor  in  the  Church  was  not  of  divine  ap- 
pointment or  right  at  all.  But  that  the  great  and  true 
Vicar  of  Christ,  namely,  the  Combined  Episcopate, 
after  all  the  Apostles  were  dead,  gave  the  Primacy  of 
honor  to  Rome ;  that  it  furthermore  arranged  the 
hierarchies  within  Itself,  and  often  rearranged  them 
according  to  circumstances  and  to  the  needs  of  the 
Church ;  creating  Patriarchs,  and  altering  the  order 
of  precedence  among  them  from  time  to  time.  In- 
deed this  is  a  wise  and  indispensable  condition,  con- 
sidering the  length  and  the  exigencies  of  the  centuries 
of  all  time.  Rome's  Primacy  was,  therefore,  entirely 
of  ecclesiastical  regulation,  and  not  of  divine  appoint- 
ment at  all.  The  ultimate  power  always  continued  to 
lie,  and  always  must  lie,  in  the  whole  Body  of  Bishops. 
Jesus  Christ  established  a  single  ministry,  and  this 
ministry  in  three  Orders,  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons. And  this  is  the  only  hierarchy  that  exists  of 
Divine  right.     And  if  it  is  of  Divine  right,  theie  if 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  197 

nothing  that  can  be  superior  in  the  Church  to  the 
Episcopate.  The  Chief  Primate  comes  from  the 
Bishops  \  the  Bishops  do  not  derive  their  origin  from 
the  Pope.  The  Pope  can  be  Primate,  he  can  be  first 
among  the  Bishops,  without  being  the  source  of  the 
Episcopate  and  Autocrat  over  all  the  Bishops.  We 
will  see  the  proof  of  all  this  anon,  both  in  Scripture 
and  in  history. 

Meanwhile  I  lay  down  here  a  fundamental  propo- 
sition. It  is  this,  namely  :  if  God  is  a  moral  Governor, 
and  if  each  man  is  a  responsible  being,  then  it  is  sim- 
ply a  logical  impossibility  for  the  Popes  to  have  re- 
ceived from  God  the  Supremacy,  i.e.  any  such  power 
to  coerce  men  as  is  claimed,  for  instance,  in  the  Bull 
of  Paul  IV,  in  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam^  and  in  the 
Syllabus.  For,  first,  since  the  Jewish  Dispensation 
closed,  and  since  the  cases  of  Ananias,  Sapphira  and 
Elymas,  which  were  exceptional  miracles,  God  refuses 
to  exercise  any  coercive  authority  that  shall  interfere 
with  man's  liberty,  with  his  right  to  live,  to  think,  and 
to  speak.  Mr.  Baring-Gould  develops  this  idea  most 
admirably  in  his  "  Origin  and  Development  of  Chris- 
tianity," and  it  is  to  him  that  I  am  indebted  for  it. 
Now  as  God  refuses  to  exercise  such  authority  Him- 
self, He  cannot   have   transmitted  such   compulsory 


198     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism » 

authority  to  any  power  on  earth,  whether  in  State  or 
Church.  The  divine  right  of  Kings  is,  therefore,  quite 
as  much  a  fiction  as  the  divine  right  of  the  Pope  to 
coerce  either  heretics  or  Emperors  and  their  sub' 
jects.  God  exercises  moral  authority  only.  He  can 
have  transmitted,  therefore,  directly  from  Himself,  only 
such  moral  authority  to  His  Church  and  to  His  State 
as  He  personally  exercises  Himself.  Any  additional 
authority,  either  in  State  or  Church,  to  enforce  what 
is  right,  must  have  been  conferred  not  from  above 
downwards,  but  from  below  upwards  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Church  or  State  by  the  common  consent  of 
the  governed,  whether  in  Church  or  State,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  and  enforcing  order  among 
themselves.  God  only  confers  from  above  downwards 
moral  authority  ;  man  has  the  right  to  confer  from 
below  upward  coercive  or  effective  authority.  The 
moment,  then,  the  Papal  Supremacy  is  held  up  as  a 
divine  right,  it  becomes  a  normal  source  of  confusion 
and  bloodshed  ;  for  it  issues  inevitably  in  a  con- 
flict between  the  governed,  who  assert  their  in- 
herent rights,  and  the  usurper  of  coercive  powers 
claimed  to  be  from  above,  and,  therefore,  never 
asked  of  nor  granted  by  the  free  consent  of  the 
governed. 


CathoJicity  and  Romanism.  199 

To  complete  the  idea,  then,  of  the  constitution  of 
Lhe  Catholic  Church.  The  divine  governing  grade 
of  Bishops,  when  correlated  together,  could  not  work 
practically  without  arranging  Primacies  within  Itself; 
and  could  not  be  prepared  to  meet  the  exigencies  of 
all  time,  without  power  to  rearrange  those  Primacies 
at  will.  Such  Primacies  are  elements  of  order  and 
sources  of  strength.  But  for  him  who  received  from 
the  Episcopate  the  Head  Primacy,  without,  however, 
any  jurisdictional  power  that  would  be  inconsistent 
with  the  full  power  of  the  Combined  Episcopate,  to 
assume  Autocracy  over  the  Episcopate  itself  was  to 
distort  and  transform  the  office  that  had  been  be- 
stowed upon  him.  It  was  to  play  the  ingrate  towards 
those  by  whose  will  he  existed  as  "first  among 
equals."  It  was  to  trample  the  Combined  Episco- 
pate under  foot.  And  he  stands  supreme  to-day  in  a 
part  of  the  Church  against  the  consent  of  four  out  of 
five  of  the  great  Patriarchates  of  early  days  and  of  six 
out  of  the  seven  of  modern  days  ;  against  the  decrees 
of  great  Roman  Councils  themselves ;  and,  as  we  have  ^ 

seen  in  a  previous  Conference,  against  the  protest  of 
even  living  and  able  Roman  Bishops.  His  ambition 
has  done  nothing  from  the  first  but  disturb  the  order 
of  the  Church,  weaken  Its  Body,  and  introduce  sus- 


200     Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

pension  of  inter  communion  and  of  co-action  among 
Its  members.  It  led  to  the  sundering  of  the  Easterns 
from  the  Westerns  in  the  middle  ages  j  of  the  Angli- 
cans from  the  Latins  at  the  Reformation  ;  and  to  the 
separation  of  the  Latin  part  into  Old  and  New  Catho- 
lics in  our  own  days.  Catholicity  claims  that  all  that 
was  necessary  to  the  end  of  organization,  order  and 
unity  was  a  general  Primate,  "  a  First  among  equals." 
Rome  claimed  that  a  supreme  Pontiff  was  essential  to 
effect  unity.  Here  is  the  distinct  issue.  But  was 
there  ever  anything  more  self-convicted  of  error,  than 
Rome's  claim  of  Supremacy  as  a  necessary  condition 
for  unity  ?  For,  ever  since  She  set  it  up,  Time  has 
hissed  at  it,  while  Christendom  has  been  going  to 
pieces  under  it.  There  is  in  physics,  I  believe,  a 
substance,  which,  when  you  attempt  to  compress  it 
beyond  certain  limits,  explodes. 

The  uninstructed  or  erroneously  instructed  church- 
man knows  nothing  about  Rome's  Primacy  in  early 
days  j  he  simply  hates  the  Pope  ;  and  that  is  all  he 
knows  about  it.  And  so  Rome,  if  she  can  get  his  ear, 
is  very  apt  to  astonish  him  by  proving  to  him  the 
Pope's  early  Primacy.  He  then  does  not  know  where 
he  stands,  and  is  just  in  condition  to  be  an  easy  cap- 
tive to  the  Papal  claim  of  Supremacy.    But  the  ancient 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  201 

Primacy,  instead  of  proving  Rome's  Supremacy  of  to- 
day is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  against  it. 

Now  Rome  claims,  I  repeat,  that  the  Pope  as  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter  is  supreme  by  Christ's  personal 
appointment  in  Palestine.  Let  us  look  at  this.  There 
is  a  preliminary  trouble  to  start  with.  For  even  if 
Christ  gave  St.  Peter  the  Supremacy,  Rome  has  first 
to  prove  that  St.  Peter,  who  was  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
was  ever  in  Rome  ;  which  is  a  doubtful  point.  It  is 
very  remarkable,  at  any  rate,  that  the  courteous  St. 
Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Romans,  should  make  no  allu- 
sion to  St.  Peter,  if  the  latter  was  Bishop  there,  but 
should  overrule  him  by  instructing  the  Romans  him- 
self Secondly;  if  St.  Peter*  was  in  Rome,  the 
Romanists  have  to  prove  that  he  ever  transferred  his 
see  from  Antioch  to  Rome  ;  which  is  another  doubt- 
ful point.  And,  thirdly  ;  that  if  he  did,  Christ  meant 
him  to  transmit  his  personal  authority  to  his  succes- 
sors. Christ  certainly  said  nothing  about  that.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  strange  on  the  face  of  it,  that  the  com- 
paratively obscure  Linus  or  Cletus,  Bishops  of  Rome, 
should  have  been,  in  any  sense,  superior  to  St.  John 
the  Divine,  the  last  living  Apostle.  However,  waive 
all  this.  Did  Christ  personally  give  St.  Peter  the 
Supremacy  ?    Rome  says,  yes  ;  Catholicity  says,  nay. 


202      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

Now  one  of  the  three  texts  on  which  Rome  bases 
her  claim  is  the  text, ''  Feed  my  sheep  and  my  lambs." 
A  thought  or  two  on  this.  What  was  it  "i  It  was  a 
reinstatement  of  the  fallen  St.  Peter.  St.  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  says,  "  By  the  words  of  our  Lord,  *  Feed  my 
sheep,'  a  renewal  as  it  were  of  the  Apostolate,  already 
conferred  on  him,  is  understood  to  take  place.'* 

Recall  for  a  moment  the  incidents  that  happened 
just  prior  to  our  Lord's  death.  When,  at  two  o'clock 
on  the  morning  of  Good  Friday,  Christ  was  arrested, 
all  the  Disciples  forsook  him.  St.  Peter  particularly 
had  said,  but  a  few  hours  previously,  with  his  usual 
warmth,  "  Though  all  men  should  be  offended  because 
of  Thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  offended  j  though  I  should 
die  with  Thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  Thee."  He  had 
assured  Christ  of  his  love  beyond  that  of  the  others. 
All  the  disciples,  indeed,  forsook  him  ;  but  there  was 
something  peculiarly  flagrant  and  heinous  about  St. 
Peter's  case.  Christ  was  led  to  the  High  Priest's 
house.  St.  Peter  returned  to  watch  afar  off.  While 
he  was  warming  himself  in  the  palace  beneath,  one  of 
the  maids  of  the  High  Priest,  looking  at  him,  said, 
"And  thou  also  wast  with  Jesus."  But  he  denied, 
saying,  '*  I  know  not,  neither  understand  what  thou 
sayest."    And  he  went  out  into  the  porch,  and  the 


ProtestanHsm  and  Romanism.  203 

cock  crew  And  another  maid  saw  him,  and  began  to 
say  "This  is  one  of  them."  And  he  denied  again. 
And  a  little  after,  they  that  stood  by  said  again, 
*'  Surely  thou  art  one  of  them,  for  thou  art  a  Galilean, 
and  thy  speech  agreeth  thereto."  But  he  began  to 
curse  and  swear,  saying,  ''  I  know  not  this  Man  of 
Whom  ye  speak."  The  other  disciples  merely  forsook 
Him.  Peter  not  only  forsook,  but  also  denied  Him 
thrice,  and  with  oaths,  after  having  declared,  too,  that 
he  loved  Him  more  than  all  the  rest.  He,  beyond  all 
others  had  fallen,  and  forfeited  his  apostleship. 

Now  come  the  remarks  of  Christ,  being  about  to 
install  the  Apostles  just  before  He  ascended.  He 
turns  to  St.  Peter ;  *'  Simon,  soil  of  Jonas,"  ('*  Simon  ;" 
He  no  longer  addresses  him  by  his  Apostolic  name, 
Peter  ;  He  goes  back  to  his  old  name ;)  "  Simon,  son 
of  Jonas,  Lovest  thou  Me  more  than  these  my  other 
disciples } "  There  are  two  Greek  words  meaning  to 
love ;  ^^Aiw,  signifying  to  love  with  the  warm  personal 
love  of  human  affection,  and  ayaTraw,  signifying  to  love 
in  the  higher,  reverential,  constant  and  unvarying 
sense.  Christ  looks  upon  Peter  now  and  says,  using 
the  strongest  word  for  love,  "  Dost  thou  indeed  love 
Me  in  the  highest  sense,  and  love  Me,  too,  more  than 
all  the  rest  of  my  disciples  ? "     We  can  well  see  Peter 


20d      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

hanging  his  head,  and,  in  view  of  the  recent  past,  ven 
turing  to  use  not  the  strongest  word  but  the  milder, 
0do,  and  responding  simply,  "Yea,  Lord,  Thou 
knowest  that  I  love  Thee  with  the  personal  love  of 
human  affection."  Christ,  still  bending  His  mild  eye 
upon  him,  says  "  Feed  my  lambs."  And  then,  after 
a  pause,  "  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  if  thou  dost  not  love 
Me  more  than  the  rest,  lovest  thou  Me  in  the  higher, 
reverential,  constant  and  unvarying  sense  ?  "  Christ 
still  insists  on  the  strong  word  for  love,  although  He 
drops  all  allusion  to  Simon's  loving  Him  more  than  the 
others  loved  Him.  St.  Peter,  scarcely  looking  up,  still 
using  the  other  word,  ^iAci,  responds,  "  Yea,  Lord,  Thou 
knowest  that  I  love  Thee."  Jesus  saith  unto  him, 
"Tend  my  sheep."  And,  a  third  time,  after  a  pause, 
with  the  same  mild  eyes  fixed  upon  him,  with  the 
same  forgiving  look,  Jesus  says,  no  longer  insisting 
even  upon  the  a>a7rdcj.  but  coming  down  to  Simon's 
word,  "  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me  with 
warm  human  affection  only  ?  "  "  Lord,"  was  Simon's 
reply,  "  Thou  knowest  all  things  ;  Thou  knowest  that 
I  love  Thee."     *'  Feed  my  sheeplings." 

O,  what  a  mild  and  beautiful  rebuke  for  those 
three  cruel  denials.  How  kind,  how  considerate  was 
our  gentle   Saviour  in   furnishing  this  opportunity  for 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  205 

Peter,  chastened  by  the  past,  to  reinstate  himself 
upon  a  true  basis,  and  in  presence  of  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles.  Judas  had  lost  his  Apostleship  entirely. 
St.  Peter  had  forfeited  his  three  times  over,  and  under 
most  aggravating  circumstances.  Judas  had  fallen, 
and  there  was  danger  of  Peter  also  being  regarded  by 
the  other  Apostles  as  unworthy  of  even  equality  with 
them.  But  as  he  had  thrice  denied  the  Lord,  our 
Lord  thus  three  times  calls  him  to  confess  his  love  for 
Him  before  all  the  Apostles.  He  thus  reinstates 
him  ;  and  then  commissions  all  together. 

Rome  claims  that,  in  this  passage,  Christ  used  the 
different  Greek  words,  viz.,  /?o<T/cf,  to  feed,  with  regard 
to  the  lambs,  and  Koi/mve,  tend,  guide,  or  perform  all 
the  duties  of  a  shepherd,  with  regard  to  the  sheep. 
And  she  claims  that  the  lambs  mean  the  laity,  and  the 
sheep  the  clergy,  including  the  Bishops  ;  Feed  the 
former,  Rule  the  latter.  But,  first,  it  is  gratuitous  to 
claim  that  the  lambs  and  sheep  mean  anything  more 
than  children  and  adults.  Secondly,  It  is  unfortu- 
nate for  the  supposition  that  the  sheep  here  means  all 
the  Apostles,  whom  Peter  was  to  rule,  that,  in  the  only 
place  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  Apostles  are 
spoken  of  as  sheep  at  all,  St.  Peter  is  included  among 
them  ;  "  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of 


2o6     Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

wolves."  And  it  is  furthermore  unfortunate  for 
Rome,  that  even  if  Troif/ave  means  tend  or  rule,  the 
passage  confers  no  special  privilege  on  St.  Peter ;  for 
we  have  the  same  word  used  in  the  case  of  even  ordi- 
nary Priests  or  elders,  far  below  the  Apostles  in  power 
and  dignity ;  viz.,  the  Priests  of  Miletus  are  command- 
ed by  St.  Paul  to  "  rule  "  the  Church  of  God ;  and 
St.  Peter,  using  the  same  word,  exhorts  the  elders  "  to 
tend  "  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  oversight  thereof; 
the  flock ;  that  is  to  say,  the  lambs  and  the  sheep. 
Indeed,  some  of  the  early  writers  have  been  careful 
to  point  out  that  the  privilege  thus  accorded  to  St. 
Peter,  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  him.  "  Christ 
Himself,"  says  St.  Basil,  "gave  to  all  succeeding 
pastors  and  teachers  a  like  authority."  And  St.  Au 
gustine  says,  "  In  that  it  was  said  to  St.  Peter,  it  was 
said  to  all,  *  Feed  my  sheep.'  " 

The  Second  text  on  which  Rome  bases  her  claim 
IS  the  famous  passage,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church."  Let  us  see 
whether  the  passage  will  bear  out  the  claim.  What 
were  the  circumstances  in  which  this  remark  was 
made  ?  The  Blessed  Lord  had  come ;  He  had 
chosen  His  Apostles ;  He  had  presented  Himself  to 
the  people  by  teaching  and  by  miracles.     As  man,  He 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  307 

was  anxious  to  know  whether  He  was  understood. 
He  asks  His  twelve  friends,  "  Whom  do  men  say  that 
I  am."  They  answered  "  Some  say  this,  some  that." 
Ah  ;  but  how  was  it  with  His  chosen  few?  Did  they 
realize  His  mission,  and  Who  He  really  was  ?  **'  But 
whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  "  St.  Peter,  with  his  usual 
impetuosity,  spoke  first ;  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  Living  God."  Now  this  was  precisely 
what  Christ  was  anxious  to  elicit  from  them.  This 
was  what  He  longed  to  have  the  people  also  know 
and  feel.  But,  first,  His  twelve  must  thoroughly 
realize  it.  This  great  fact,  that  He  was  the  Messias, 
was  clearly  the  uppermost,  the  lowermost,  the  absorb- 
ing topic  in  His  mind  at  the  time  He  was  speaking. 
Is  it  natural  for  Him  instantly  to  drop  that,  and  state 
another  thought ;  or  is  it  natural  for  Him  to  carry  that 
same  idea  along?  Peter  was  the  only  one  of  the 
twelve,  so  far,  that  seemed  to  be  thoroughly  convinced. 
He  turns  quickly  to  Peter,  therefore,  and  replies,  as  it 
were,  "  Yes  ;  you  have  spoken  rightly ;  I  am  the 
Christ — the  God-man  ;  and  upon  this  eternal  Rock 
I  will  build  my  Church." 

But  besides  this  naturalness  in  the  flow  of  the 
thought  of  the  moment,  the  Blessed  Lord  positively 
did  not  say  at  all  in  this  passage  that  He  would  build 


2o8      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

His  Church  on  Peter.  The  very  passage  itself  says 
that  He  would  build  it  on  something  other  than  St. 
Peter.  This  fact  does  not  appear  under  our  English 
translation  ;  but  it  appears  unmistakably  in  the  origi- 
nal Greek.  For  the  word  translated  Peter  does  not 
mean  a  Rock  at  all.  Just  as  there  are  two  words  in 
English,  namely,  stone,  meaning  a  pebble,  and  rock, 
meaning  a  great  ledge,  so  there  are  two  corresponding 
words  in  Greek.  The  masculine  word  b  irhpoq^  or  Peter, 
means  a  stone.  The  feminine  word,  v  Tthpa,  means 
something  else  ;  it  means  a  great  rock.  Now  if  the 
Lord  had  meant  to  say  He  would  build  His  Church 
on  Peter,  He  would  have  said  so ;  He  would  have 
said  "  Thou  art  Peter,  o  petros,  a  stone,  and  upon  this 
petros,  this  stone,  this  Peter,  I  will  build  my  Church  " 
No,  but  He  changed  the  word  to  the  feminine,  petra  \ 
"  Thou  art  o  petros,  a  stone,  and,  not  upon  this  stone, 
but  upon  this  Petra,  this  Rock,  which  thou  hast  just 
announced,  this  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Living  God, 
will  I  build  my  Church." 

The  only  reply  of  the  Romanists  to  this  unanswer- 
ible  argument,  is  one  that  Bellarmine's  ingenuity 
suggested,  namely  ;  that  our  Lord  spoke  in  Syriac 
and  not  in  Greek  j  and  that,  in  Syriac,  He  did  not 
change  the  word  from  stone  to  rock,  but  used    the 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  209 

same  word  in  both  clauses,  saying,  "  Thou  art  Cepha, 
and  upon  this  Cepha  I  will  build  my  Church."  But 
there  are  only  five  difficulties  about  this  reply. 

First.  It  is  guess-work  on  the  part  of  Bellarmine. 
For  it  is  not  known  now  whether  our  Lord  spoke  at 
the  time  in  Greek  or  in  Syriac. 

Secondly.  Even  if  Bellarmine's  unproved  assertion 
were  true,  we  should  still  be  "  compelled  to  accept  St. 
Matthew's  variation  of  the  two  words,  as  divinely  in- 
spired for  the  express  purpose  of  marking  the  differ- 
ence "  between  the  stone,  Peter,  and  the  Rock,Christ. 

Thirdly.  The  Roman  Catholic,  at  any  rate,  can- 
not raise  this  plea  at  all.  He  is  shut  out  from  it, 
because  he  is  bound  by  the  decrees  of  Trent  to  accept 
the  Latin  Vulgate  Bible  as  holy  and  canonical ;  and 
that  Version  uses  two  different  words,  Petrus  and 
Petram  \  making  the  same  distinction  between  pebble 
and  Rock  that  is  found  in  the  Greek. 

Fourthly.  It  so  happens  (although  Bellarmine  did 
not  chance  to  know  it,)  that  both  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Syriac  word  when  it  means  rock  is  feminine  ;  which 
Cephas,  as  a  masculine  noun  denoting  a  man's  name, 
certainly  is  not. 

And  lastly.  It  also  happens  that,  in  the  Syriac 
version  of  the  Bible  itself,  Bellarmine's  unproved  stato- 


2IO      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

ment  about  Cephas  is  not  sustained.  For  the  same 
difference  is  found  in  the  Syriac  that  the  Greek  pre- 
sents ;  for  the  feminine  pronoun  is  actually  united  to 
the  second  Cepha,  and  not  to  the  first. 

So  that  Bellarmine's  rejoinder  breaks  down  all 
round  and  utterly. 

Indeed  the  Apostles  are  often  called,  in  Scripture, 
stones,  but  never  a  Rock ;  while  Christ  Himself  is 
often  called  a  Rock.  Besides,  "  if  the  Infinite  and 
Almighty  God  was  the  Rock  of  the  Elder  Israel,  while 
St.  Peter,  a  mere  man,  was  the  rock  of  Christendom, 
then  the  Gospel  has  sunk  unspeakably  and  immeas- 
urably below  the  Law ;  which  is  contrary  to  all 
analogy  of  faith." 

**  Of  all  the  Fathers  who  interpret  this  passage," 
say  the  able  Roman  Catholic  divines  who  wrote 
Janus,  "  not  one  single  one  applies  the  words  to  the 
Roman  Bishops  as  St.  Peter's  successors.  How 
many  fathers  have  busied  themselves  with  the  text, 
yet  not  one  of  them  whose  commentaries  we  have, 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  Hilary,  Augustine,  Cyril,  The- 
odoret,  and  those  whose  interpretations  are  collected 
in  catenas,  has  dropped  the  faintest  hint  that  the 
Primacy  of  Rome  is  the  consequence  of  this  remark 
of  Christ's.     Not  one  of  them  has  explained  the  Rock^ 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  211 

or  foundation  on  which  Christ  would  build  His 
Church,  as  being  any  office  given  to  St.  Peter  to  be 
transmitted  to  his  successors  ;  but  they  understood  by 
it  either  Christ  Himself,  or  St.  Peter's  confession  of 
faith  in  Christ ;  often  both  together.  Or  else  they 
thought  Peter  was  the  foundation  equally  with  the 
other  Apostles,  the  twelve  being  together  the  founda- 
tion stones  of  the  Church. " 

The  Lord  is  evidently  speaking  of  no  subordinate, 
but  of  the  chief  part  of  the  Church's  basis.  And  when 
we  come  down  to  plain  simple  facts,  stripped  of  all 
subtleties,  if  the  Church  is  built  on  the  foundation  of 
the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  surely  it  is  no  less  than 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  that  is  the  Chief  corner-stone, 
and  not  St.  Peter. 

It  is  very  strange,  too,  if  the  Lord  had  by  this 
passage  given  the  Supremacy  to  St.  Peter,  that  the 
disciples  should  not  have  known  it ;  but  should  be 
found,  shortly  after,  discussing  as  to  who  was  to  have 
precedence  in  Christ's  Kingdom  ;  and  that  our  Lord, 
instead  of  reminding  them  that  He  had  already  ap- 
pointed Peter  as  their  head,  should  reply  in  terms  in- 
consistent with  that ;  and  that,  a  little  later,  He  should 
again  put  them  all  on  a  level ;  "  Ye  shall  sit  upor 
twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel" 


212      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

When  the  Lord,  after  His  resurrection,  said  to 
St.  Peter,  "  Follow  thou  Me,"  and  Peter  turned  and 
asked,  "  Lord,  and  what  shall  this  man  do  ?  "  "  It  is 
obvious  that,  if  St.  Peter  had  received  jurisdiction  over 
St.  John,  his  question  would  have  been  perfectly 
legitimate  and  reasonable,  and  would  have  merited  a 
reply  as  being  his  concern,  because  affecting  one  for 
whom  he  had  been  made  responsible.  But  the  an- 
swer he  received,"  ''What  is  that  to  thee?"  denotes 
the  restriction  of  St.  Peter's  commission  to  his  own 
share  of  Apostolic  work,  with  no  right  of  control  over 
St.  John. 

Besides,  both  St.  Luke  and  St.  Mark,  who  was 
St.  Peter's  amanuensis,  omit  this  text  entirely.  Hence 
it  is  clear  that,  in  their  minds,  the  important  part  of 
the  conversation  was  the  declaration  of  our  Lord's 
Person  and  Office,  and  not  any  definition  about  St. 
Peter.  And  it  is  evident  that  St.  Peter,  in  supervis- 
ing St.  Mark's  gospel,  did  not  himself  consider  it 
necessary  to  communicate  this  text,  on  which  Rome 
relies  for  the  Supremacy,  to  those  for  whom  his  Gos- 
pel was  written  ;  "  and,  therefore,  it  is  clear  that  he 
did  not  himself  attach  the  meaning  to  it  which  Rome 
claims  it  has.  For,  had  he  done  so,  he  was  bound^ 
for  the  highest  reasons,  to  make  his  peculiar  commis- 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  213 

sion  known ;  precisely  as  an  ambassador  is  required 
to  produce  his  credentials  at  his  entry  upon  his  office. 
Nor  can  such  a  breach  of  duty  as  silence  on  his  part 
be  excused  under  such  circumstances  by  attributing 
it  to  St.  Peter's  humility  ;  because  the  truest  humility 
is  implicit  obedience  to  God's  commands,  whether 
tending  to  exalt  or  abase  him  to  whom  the  command 
is  given.'* 

If  St.  Peter  had  succeeded  in  any  special  sense 
to  Christ's  authority  over  the  Church  as  His  Vicar, 
and  "  if,  in  consequence,  the  Apostolic  College  bore 
any  such  relation  to  him  as,  for  instance,  the  College 
of  Cardinals  does  to  the  Pope — and  the  Roman  theory 
requires  no  less — then,  certainly,  St.  Peter  would,  after 
the  Ascension  have  filled  up  the  vacant  place  of 
Judas  on  his  own  authority."  But  he  does  nothing 
of  the  kind.  He  merely  suggests  that  the  place  be 
filled  j  but  it  is  the  whole  College  that  nominates,  and 
the  vacancy  is  filled  by  their  ballots. 

Moreover,  when  the  College  of  Apostles  heard  that 
Samaria  had  received  the  Word  of  God,  they  sent 
Peter  and  John  to  administer  Confirmation.  Now 
"  it  is  a  maxim,  admitting  of  no  exception  in  human 
affairs,  that  the  sender  is  greater  than  the  sent.  And, 
therefore,  the  Apostolic  Board  at  Jerusalem  was,  in 


214     Catholicity^  Protestantisiti  a?id  Romanism, 

its  totality,  greater  than  St.  Peter."  How  would  a 
similar  transaction  seem  to  us  to-day?  How  would 
such  an  announcement  as  this  sound,  says  a  late 
writer  in  the  "  Church  Quarterly,"  to  whom  I  am  in- 
debted for  some  of  the  above  quotations,  viz  :  *'  The 
College  of  Cardinals  at  Rome,  having  heard  that  a 
dispute  as  to  liturgical  questions  had  arisen  at  Lyons, 
sent  the  Pope  and  Cardinal  Simeoni  to  settle  it  ? " 
Why  such  a  thing  is  inconceivable.  And  yet  the 
Board  of  Apostles  sent  Peter  and  John. 

Furthermore,  if  Christ  had  given  the  Supremacy 
to  St.  Peter,  surely  St.  Peter  would  have  presided  at 
the  first  General  Council  at  Jerusalem,  and  announced 
its  decision.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  St.  James 
that  took  this  precedency. 

Besides,  how  does  it  happen  that  the  only  inspired 
letters  of  instruction  to  Bishops  should  have  been 
penned  by  St.  Paul  and  not  by  St.  Peter  ?  How  hap- 
pens it  that,  as  soon  as  St.  Paul  appears  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  he  completely  overshadows  St.  Peter, 
and  St.  Peter  almost  disappears  from  mention  ?  How 
happens  it,  on  the  theory  that  St.  Peter  was  Ruler  and 
sole  Doctor  of  the  Church,  that  St.  Paul's  writings  are 
not  only  fourteen  times  in  excess  of  St.  Peter's  in 
mere  bulk,  but  have  been  incomparably  "the  most 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  215 

powerful  factoi  in  moulding  the  life  and  tenets  of  the 
Church?" 

If  the  plenitude  of  teaching  and  ruling  was  vested 
in  St.  Peter,  how  happens  it  that  the  chief  store-house 
of  doctrine  and  disciplinary  instructions  is  in  St. 
Paul's,  St.  James's,  St.  John's  writings  ;  anywhere, 
in  fact,  instead  of  St.  Peter's  ?  *'  It  is  impossible  to 
reconcile  these  broad  facts  with  the  position  claimed 
for  the  Popes  as  chief  rulers  and  teachers  of  the 
Church  in  virtue  of  their  heirship  to  St.  Peter." 

Then  again,  St.  Paul  makes  a  remarkable  state- 
ment in  this  passage,  viz. :  "  When  they  saw  that  the 
Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was  committed  unto  me, 
as  the  Gospel  of  the  circumcision  was  unto  Peter,  (for 
He  that  wrought  effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostle- 
ship  of  the  circumcision,  the  Same  was  mighty  in  me 
towards  the  Gentiles,)"  etc.  Here,  "instead  of  the 
Church  Universal  being,  so  to  speak,  St.  Peter's 
diocese,  he  was,  after  making  the  first  gentile  con- 
verts, divinely  restricted  to  the  Jewish  converts  ;  and 
had  no  jurisdiction  whatever  over  the  gentiles.  How 
is  this  consistent  with  any  divine  appointment  of 
St.  Peter  to  universal  jurisdiction  ?" 

St.  Paul,  too,  claims  that  ''the  care  of  all  the 
churches  "  came  upon  him  daily.     Not  a  word  of  the 


2i6     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

kind  from  St.  Peter.  Tenfold  more  are  the  texts 
that  would  seem  to  elevate  St.  Paul,  than  the  three 
only  which  diligent  search  has  found  to  do  duty  foi 
St.  Peter.  St.  Chrysostom,  indeed,  styles  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles,  "  The  Apostle  of  the  world,"  "  The 
planter  of  the  Church,"  "  The  foundation  of  the  faith," 
"  The  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  If  he  had  said 
this  of  St.  Peter,  our  ears  would  have  been  dinned 
with  the  cry  of  this  quotation. 

How  does  it  happen  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  James 
resisted  St.  Peter  to  the  face ;  in  a  case,  too,  where 
it  eventuated  that  St.  Peter  was  wrong  'i  And  how 
happens  it  that  not  in  one  single  instance  did  St. 
Peter  either  exercise,  or  claim  to  exercise,  Supremacy 
or  even  Primacy  ? 

St.  Augustine  says  in  his  Retractions,  **  I  said,  in  a 
certain  place,  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  that  on  him,  as  on 
a  Rock,  the  Church  is  founded.  But  I  am  aware  that 
afterwards  I  very  frequently  expounded  the  words  as 
said  of  our  Lord.  Peter  being  so  named  from  the  Rock, 
Petra,  and  thus  representing  the  Church  Which  is  built 
upon  the  Rock.  For  it  was  not  said  to  him,  *  Thou  art 
the  Rock,  the  Petr<?,'  but '  Thou  art  Petr<7j.'  The  Rock, 
the  Petra,  was  Christ,  Whom  Simon  confessing,  as  the 
whole  Church  confesses  Him,  was  called  Petros."  * 
♦  Retractions,  i.  xxi.,  a.d.  428. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  217 

The  Third  text  which  Rome  alleges  in  support  of 
the  Pope's  claims  is^  **  I  will  give  unto  thee  (Peter)  the 
Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  But  this  text  fails 
as  a  support  quite  as  utterly  as  that  about  the  Rock. 
For  our  Lord  indeed  promised  that  He  would  give 
Peter  the  Keys.  But,  shortly  after.  He  made  the 
self-same /r^;«/j-^,  in  the  same  words,  to  all  the  other 
Apostles.  And  when,  after  His  Resurrection,  He  ful- 
filled these  promises  touching  binding  and  loosing, 
He  gave  the  Keys  to  all  the  Apostles  equally  ;  of 
course,  fulfilling  His  promise  both  to  St  Peter  and  to 
the  rest.  So  that  the  power  of  the  Keys  is  by  no 
means  St.  Peter's  exclusive  right,  but  was  given  to 
the  Combined  Episcopate  as  the  great  Vicar  of 
Christ.  In  reference  to  this  passage,  Origen  asks 
incredulously, "  What !  are  the  Keys  given  by  the  Lord 
to  Peter  only  ?  "  St.  Ambrose  distinctly  teaches  that 
"  What  is  said  to  Peter,  is  said  to  the  Apostles  (as  a 
body)."  St.  Augustine  writes,  "  These  Keys  were  re- 
ceived not  by  one  man,  but  by  the  unity  of  the  Church. 
Did  Peter  receive  the  Keys,  and  not  Paul  ?  Peter,  and 
not  John  and  James  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  ?  "  * 

These  three,  then,  are  the  passages  on  which  Rome 
bases  her  claim  that  Peter  is  supreme  by  divine  ap- 
pointment and  right. 

*  S.  Augustine  Sermons,  ccxcv.  2,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 
10 


2i8      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

We  have  only  examined  Scripture.  We  have  not 
touched  the  equally  strong  historical  argument  at  all. 

What  more  miserable  attitude  for  a  vast  pyramid 
can  be  conceived,  than  for  it  to  be  standing  balanced 
on  its  apex.  The  vast  pyramid  of  the  Papal  Suprem- 
acy stands  upside  down  and  rests  on  these  three  Scrip- 
ture texts.  They  are  the  guarantee  of  its  poise  and 
its  security.  But,  if  I  mistake  not,  you  have  seen 
that  its  apex  is  not  granite,  but  melting  ice. 


SIXTH    CONFERENCE. 

The  Papal  Autocracy  not  Sustained  by  History.    Con- 
clusion. 

Gentlemen, 

We  have  found  Rome's  claim  to  possess  the  Pri- 
macy bv  Divine  right,  to  be  quite  unwarranted  by 
Scripture.  We  have  seen  that  Scripture,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  clear  in  stating  that  Christ  founded  the 
Church  on  Himself  as  Its  corner-stone,  and  not  on 
St.  Peter ;  and  gave  the  keys  to  the  whole  College  of 
Apostles  instead  of  to  St.  Peter  alone.  We  have 
found  that  St.  Peter  never  exercised,  or  even  claimed 
a  Primacy  ;  which,  as  a  humble  man,  obedient  to 
God,  he  was  bound  to  do,  had  Christ  given  it  to  him  ; 
that,  though  he  seemed  to  be  prominent  among  the 
Apostles  at  first,  as  being  the  man  of  strongest  char- 
acter among  them,  and  probably  the  oldest,  yet  that 
he  is  completely  overshadowed  by  St.  Paul,  as  soon 
as  the  latter  appears  on  the  scene  ;  and,  furthermore, 
that  St.  Peter's  personal  jurisdiction,  far  from  being 
in  the  end  universal,  was  actually   restricted  to  the 


220      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Jewish  converts,  while  St.  Paul,  as  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  had  all  the  rest  of  the  churches  committed 
to  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

If,  then,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  found  in  after 
time,  as  is  the  fact,  with  a  universal  Primacy  of 
Honor,  such  Primacy  must  have  had  an  ecclesiastical 
origin  subsequent  to  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  Leav- 
ing Scripture  and  St.  Peter,  then,  let  us  come  to  his- 
tory. Here  also  Catholicity  rests  her  position  with 
the  utmost  confidence. 

We  search  in  vain  in  the  writings  of  the  immedi- 
ate successors  of  the  Apostles,  namely,  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  Sts.  Clement,  Polycarp,  Ignatius  and 
Barnabas,  for  any  evidences  of  a  Primacy  of  any  kind 
in  Rome.  We  search  in  vain  for  such  evidence 
through  that  document  of  the  second  century  known 
as  the  Apostolic  Canons.  Catholicity  asserts,  then, 
that  sometime  subsequently  to  the  Apostles  and  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  Our  Lord,  acting  through  His 
Great  Vicar  the  Combined  Episcopate,  granted  a 
Primacy  of  Honor  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome  ;  and  this 
not  because  they  were  successors  of  St.  Peter,  but 
solely  because  Rome  was  the  capital  city  of  the  world 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  at  that  time,  therefore,  united  in 
himself   several    ecclesiastical    dignities.      He    was 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  221 

Bishop  of  his  diocese,  Archbishop  also  of  his  Prov 
ince,  Patriarch  of  the  Patriarchate  consisting  of 
Corsica,  Sardinia,  Sicily,  and  Italy  below  the  forty- 
fourth  parallel  of  latitude,  and,  lastly,  so  far  as  the 
whole  Church  was  concerned,  universal  Primate  of 
Honor.  Catholicity  asserts  that  the  Great  Vicar  of 
Christ,  the  Combined  Episcopate,  did  not  at  that 
time  abdicate,  and  has  never  since  abdicated  its 
supreme  power  in  General  Council,  that  it  has  never 
destroyed  itself  by  giving  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  a 
legislative,  judicial  and  executive  Primacy  over  other 
Patriarchates  than  his  own,  still  less  the  Autocracy 
over  the  whole  church. 

Catholicity  claims  that,  by  slow  degrees,  and  by 
the  pursuit  of  a  consistent  policy  of  aggression,  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  starting  on  this  slender  foundation 
of  a  Primacy  of  Honor,  acquired,  through  their  power, 
wealth  and  influence  as  Prelates  of  the  capital  city  of 
the  world,  function  after  function  in  the  West,  until  at 
last  the  modern  Supremacy  is  the  result.  In  short, 
just  as  in  the  State,  monarchies  slowly  emerged  out 
of  the  powerful  aristocracies  of  feudal  times,  so  in  the 
Church  the  Papal  monarchy  slowly  reared  itself  in  the 
west  over  Episcopal  power  \  and  as  in  the  State 
the  raonarchs  gradually  became  absolute,  until    we 


222      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

have  such  Kings  as  Louis  XlVth  of  France,  so  in  the 
Church  the  Papacy  also  became  absolute  until  we 
have  such  Pontiffs  as  Gregory  the  Seventh  ;  and  as  in 
the  State  this  absolutism  was  succeeded  by  the  be- 
heading of  Charles  First,  the  Revolution  of  1688,  the 
French  and  American  Revolutions,  and  by  anarchy 
generally,  so  in  the  Church  the  Papal  absolutism  was 
followed  by  the  religious  revolts  and  anarchies  of  the 
sixteenth  and  subsequent  centuries. 

But  surely,  gentlemen,  to-day  we  have  harbinger 
of  better  times.  Your  very  call  for  these  conferences 
is  one  of  the  minor  but  unmistakable  notes  of  the 
dawn.  Surely  the  constitutional  governments  which 
are  now  succeeding  the  anarchies  in  state,  are,  in 
God's  Providence,  preparing  men's  minds  to  hate  in 
Religion  both  the  many-headed  individualism  and 
chronic  anarchy  of  Protestantism,  and  the  one-headed 
absolutism  of  Rome,  and  to  restore  that  wise  consti- 
tutionalism in  Church  also,  which  God  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago  provided  for  Catholicity,  but  which  the 
ambition  of  Rome  invaded.  This  divine  Constitu- 
tionalism in  Church  is  the  safeguard  of  the  Bishop, 
the  Priest,  the  Deacon  and  the  laymen. 

A  quickened  action  of  blood  in  the  arm  undei 
exercise  is  a  healthy  process.      But  an  increase  of 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  223 

blood  there  amounting  to  an  inflammation  is  disease  \ 
which,  unless  it  is  checked,  will  in  the  end  kill  the 
whole  body.  Now  the  difference  between  the  healthy 
action  of  the  blood  and  the  earliest  beginnings  of  in- 
flammation is  faint.  And  so  the  difference  between 
Rome's  early  Primacy  of  Honor  on  the  one  hand,  and, 
on  the  other,  her  later  Primacy  of  functions  and  her 
subsequent  Autocracy  was  at  first  very  faint.  The 
divergence  between  them  was  like  the  divergence  be- 
tween two  straight  lines,  which  start  from  the  same 
point  with  barely  a  shade's  difference  in  their  several 
directions  ;  but  follow  them  along  for  sixteen  hundred 
miles,  and  they  come  out  vastly  far  apart.  Rome 
prefers  the  diseased  limb  ;  Protestantism  would  slay 
the  whole  body ;  Catholicity  would  restore  the  limb 
to  health. 

The  slight  divergence  which  took  place  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  between  ambitious  Rome's 
Primacy  of  Honor  and  what  has  since  become  her 
modern  Autocracy,  was  yielded  to  at  the  time  by  many 
a  Bishop,  who,  had  he  known  what  it  would  long  sub- 
sequently eventuate  in,  would  have  been  as  firm  in 
resistance  to  it,  as  the  Eastern  Church  was  from  the 
first,  and  as  Catholicity  has  been  ever  since.  We  to- 
day, however,  cannot   blame   those   ancient  Bishops 


2  24      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

very  much,  when  we  consider  that  it  took  England  a 
thousand  years  to  shake  off  the  absolute  monarchy 
that  was  emerging  and  establishing  itself  in  the 
western  part  of  the  Church. 

Rome's  argument  with  an  ill-instructed  Church- 
man to-day  is  wily.  I  do  not  say  the  Romanist  is 
wily ;  I  speak  only  of  his  argument.  A  sincere  man 
may  use  a  wily  argument.  So  much  the  more  there- 
fore should  that  ill-instructed  Churchman  be  on  his 
guard.  Unfortunately,  too,  Rome's  argument  is  re- 
inforced by  that  Churchman's  ignorance,  or  positively 
false  education.  Besides,  it  is  proverbial,  that  a  false- 
hood that  is  all  a  falsehood  is  an  easy  thing  to  dis- 
pose of,  but  a  falsehood  that  is  partly  a  truth  is  always 
the  worst  kind  of  a  lie,  being  a  complicated  thing  to 
expose.  The  uninstructed  or  falsely  instructed  and 
prejudiced  Churchman,  if  Rome  can  once  get  his  ear, 
is,  first,  astonished  at  finding  that,  as  a  positive  fact, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  after  all  universal  Primate  in 
the  Early  Church.  He  had  never  dreamed  of  such  a 
thing.  He  now  does  not  know  what  to  think.  The 
armor  of  his  mere  prejudice  (proved  brittle  and  worth- 
less,) falls  from  around  him  and  leaves  him  helpless 
He  grows  indignant  at  his  old  teachers  as  blind  guides. 
He  loses  all  confidence  in   them.     With  a  growing 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  225 

Confidence  in  his  new  Roman  friend  he  flies  to  him 
for  further  information.  The  latter,  perfectly  cool, 
recognizes,  with  more  or  less  of  secret  joy,  the  advan- 
tage he  has  gained,  and  cultivates  it.  He  makes 
further  statements  with  great  calmness  and  with  great 
confidence.  The  awakened  seeker  draws,  as  he  goes 
on,  no  distinction  between  a  Primacy  of  Honor,  a 
Primacy  of  functions  and  an  Autocracy,  for  he  knows 
no  distinction.  He  does  not  trace  in  History  the  im- 
perceptible passage  of  the  first  into  the  second  and 
of  the  second  into  the  third.  Rome  mingles,  mean- 
time, the  different  historical  proofs,  easily  found  along 
the  centuries,  of  Supremacy,  of  Primatial  functions,  and 
of  Honor,  and  lays  them  indiscriminately  before  him. 
Proofs  for  the  later  Supremacy  reinforce  proofs  for  the 
earlier  Primacy  of  functions  ;  proofs  for  the  earliest 
mere  Primacy  of  Honor  react  upon  and  reinforce  the 
other  two.  The  consistent  centuries  really  seem  to 
him  to  speak  one  favorable  voice  touching  the  present 
Papal  claim.  And  then,  with  this  preparation,  the  poor 
startled  man's  mind,  grown  more  and  more  helpless 
from  want  of  minute  historical  information,  is  just 
ready  to  be  run  back  with  the  utmost  ease  into  Scrip- 
ture and  on  to  Rome's  confidently  stated  and  plausible, 
"Thou  art  Peter,"  and  to  find  itself  at  last  defini- 
10* 


226     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

tively  shipwrecked  on  the  Rock.  Rome's  false 
theory,  like  many  things  that  are  of  mere  human 
contrivance,  has  the  advantage  of  being  easily  under- 
stood and  grasped  by  an  undisciplined  mind ;  Catho- 
licity's true  theory,  like  most  Divine  things,  has  the 
disadvantage  of  being  complicated  and  not  readily 
grasped.  A  system  like  Rome's,  in  which  one  man's 
will  is  the  law  for  all  others,  is  a  simple  system  in  its 
workings,  and  easy  to  comprehend  ;  a  system  like 
Protestantism's,  where  each  man's  will  is  a  law  for 
himself,  is  also  easy  to  comprehend  ;  but  a  constitu- 
tional form  of  government,  with  its  balances,  its  intri- 
cacies, its  checks  and  counterchecks  and  its  resultant 
happiness  to  man,  requires  time  and  care  for  its  com- 
prehension by  one  to  whom  it  is  all  novel. 

Thus  it  has  happened  that  Protestant  and  Low- 
church  ignorance  and  prejudice  have  been,  and  are 
Rome's  most  powerful  friends  and  allies.  From  the 
opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  Low-churchman- 
ship  has  been  the  underlying,  prolific  and  sole  cause 
of  perversions  to  Rome.  The  gymnastic  pirouetting 
of  eventual  perverts  through  a  little  ritualism  before- 
hand does  not  alter  the  broad  fact.  Your  speaker 
has  a  list  of  the  clerical  perversions  to  Rome  that 
have  occurred  in  the  American  Church  since   1820 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  227 

There  are  one  or  two  cases  where  the  early  education 
of  those  who  perverted  could  not  be  traced,  and  is 
not  known.  But  with  the  exception  of,  perhaps,  one 
other  case,  in  every  instance  the  clergymen  who  have 
perverted  were  reared  in  Low- church  or  in  Latitudi- 
narian  views.  The  one  or  two  recent  American  per- 
versions, that  have  occurred  within  the  last  ten  years, 
were  no  exceptions  to  this  general  rule. 

Let  us  look  now  at  history.  As  the  Christian 
Church  came  up  and  took  definite  shape,  let  us  watch 
and  ascertain  what  that  shape  was.  First  of  all,  the 
Apostles  derived  their  authority  from  the  Blessed 
Lord.  "  All  power,"  said  He,  "  is  given  unto  Me  in 
heaven  and  earth  ;  go^<?  therefore."  In  the  commis- 
sion thus  given  there  is  no  reference,  you  will  per- 
ceive, either  to  any  local  restrictions,  or  to  any  dis- 
tinction between  the  Apostles,  as  if  one  had  received 
any  power  of  greater  extent  than  the  others;  "Go 
ye.'^  Thus  Christ  constituted  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
which  extended  throughout  the  earth,  into  one  great 
Apostolic  Diocese ;  over  which,  not  one  Apostle,  but 
the  whole  body  of  the  Apostles  had  spiritual  authority 
given  them.  So  far,  then,  the  government  of  the 
Christian  Church  is  Episcopal  and  not  Papal.  Al 
this  very  root  of  matters  the  ultimate  power  is  clearly 


228      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

vested  in  the  Combined  Episcopate  as  the  Vicar  of 
Christ. 

Now  though  this  divine  commission  was  given  by 
our  Lord  to  the  whole  Board  of  the  Apostolate,  it 
does  not  appear  that  He  intended  the  Twelve  to  keep 
all  together  as  they  exercised  their  ministry.  What- 
ever subdivisions,  therefore,  of  the  Apostolic  Diocese, 
that  is  to  say  of  the  whole  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth, 
might  be  expedient,  as  one  Apostle  went  to  one 
region,  and  another  to  another,  the  arrangement  of 
their  several  fields  of  labor  was  left  to  the  Apostles 
themselves,  and  was  not  ordained  by  the  Lord  before 
the  disappearance  of  His  Natural  Body.  St.  Paul, 
indeed,  uses  such  language  as  implies  that  it  was 
customary  for  each  Apostle  to  abstain  from  "  building 
on  another's  foundation."  "As  the  number  of  the 
original  Apostles  was  gradually  diminished  by  death, 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  remainder  would  naturally  ex- 
pand ;  until,  at  last,  St.  John  was  left  for  many  years 
the  sole  living  one  of  the  original  Apostles  \  when  all 
strictly  Apostolic  power  would,  of  course,  be  centered 
in  him  for  the  rest  of  his  life."  It  seems  to  have 
been  during  his  sole  Apostolate  that  that  local  Epis- 
copal system  of  the  Church,  which  had  been  begun 
before,   as   instance   the   cases   of  Sts.   Timothy   in 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  229 

Ephesus,  Titus  in  Crete,  and  Mark  in  Alexandria, 
was  finally  arranged,  so  as  to  become  the  permanent 
system  all  over  the  Church.  "  And  it  is  doubtless  in 
this  sense  that  Tertullian  says,  '  The  order  of  Bish- 
ops, if  traced  back  to  its  origin,  will  rest  upon  John.'  " 
It  is  very  remarkable  he  does  not  say  upon  St.  Peter. 
That  was  a  subsequent  invention.  Thus  the  orderly 
rules,  by  which  a  definite  field  of  labor,  a  diocese, 
should  be  mapped  out  for  each  Bishop,  grew  up 
during  the  Apostolic  period,  and  so  the  temporary 
Apostolic  system  of  jurisdiction  was  extended  into  the 
permanent  Diocesan. 

In  shaping  the  Church  geographically  the  Apos- 
tles were  not  obliged  on  principle  to  conform  to  the 
territorial  divisions  or  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
But  practically  they  seem  to  have  done  so.  For  they 
often  passed  through  the  principal  cities  of  one  pro- 
vince and  founded  the  Church,  before  entering  an- 
other ;  and  afterwards  they  treated  the  faithful  of  that 
province  as  forming  one  community.  "  For  instance 
St.  Paul  writes  to  the  church  at  Corinth  and  to  all  the 
faithful  of  Achaia.  He  thus  unites  in  his  thoughts 
all  the  Christians  of  Achaia,  and,  at  the  head  of  the 
churches  of  that  province,  he  places  that  of  Corinth, 
which  was  its  political  capital.     He  addresses  in  the 


2^0      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

same  manner  another  of  his  letters  to  the  Churches  of 
the  Galatians ;  again  uniting  in  his  mind  all  the  com- 
munities of  that  civil  province."  * 

The  result  of  this  action  was,  first,  the  grouping 
of  the  Churches  of  each  Province  together;  and, 
secondly,  the  pre-eminence  over  his  colleagues,  or 
the  Archi-episcopal  rank,  of  the  Bishop  of  the  capital 
city  of  the  Province.  Besides  this,  the  provincial 
capital  was  often  the  first  city  in  a  province  in  which 
the  Church  was  founded,  and  from  which  the  Gospel 
spread  to  the  other  subordinate  cities.  This,  there- 
fore, also  threw  its  Bishop  into  the  rank  of  the 
Metropolitan  of  the  whole  Province,  and  centered  in 
him  the  power  of  taking  order  for  the  appointment 
and  consecration  of  the  suffragan  Bishops  of  his  Pro- 
vince. In  fact  St.  Titus  was  evidently  left  by  St. 
Paul  as  Archbishop  of  Crete,  and  St.  Timothy  as 
Archbishop  of  Ephesus. 

It  is  quite  material  to  observe,  that  customs  which 
thus  grew  up  of  themselves,  so  to  speak,  and  were 
found  to  be  convenient,  that  the  Provincial  primacies, 
for  instance,  which  were  thus  established,  together 
with  the  powers  centering  in  the  Archbishops,  became 
precedents  in  newly-worked  districts  ;  and  that  subse- 
*  Hefelc. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  231 

quently  these  habits  of  order  and  organization,  into 
which  the  Church  practically  and  naturally  fell,  were 
confirmed  formally  from  time  to  time  by  the  Com- 
bined Episcopate  in  General  Councils  assembled. 
The  Provincial  system,  then,  thus  begun  by  the  Apos- 
tles, with  its  Archbishops  and  suffragan  Bishops,  be- 
came, first  by  the  authority  of  the  acts  of  the  Apostles 
themselves,  and  secondly  by  the  authority  of  the 
decrees  of  the  Combined  Episcopate,  the  fixed  gov- 
ernmental policy  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Thus  when 
we  pass  away  from  the  Apostolic  days,  we  find  that  the 
cities  of  each  Province  formed  the  Dioceses  of  the 
Bishops,  while  the  Bishop  of  the  capital  city  was 
Archbishop  of  the  Province.  As  the  ultimate  power 
of  erecting  Primacies  lay  in  the  Combined  Episcopate, 
the  power  of  destroying  any  one,  or  of  altering  the 
eminence  among  them  lay  there  also.  Indeed  the 
Councils  of  Chalcedon  and  the  Trullane  ordained, 
that ''  If  by  royal  authority  any  city  be,  or  should  here- 
after be,  re-established,  the  order  of  the  churches 
shall  be  according  to  the  civil  form." 

Such  being  the  state  of  things,  then,  in  this  Sec- 
ond or  Provincial  Period  of  the  Church,  it  is  very 
clear  that  one  result  would  naturally  follow,  namely  : 
the   mind   of    the    Church   would   very   early    have 


232     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

planted  within  it  what  we  may  call  "  The  leading- 
city  idea."  Under  the  influence  of  this  idea  there 
was  very  early  conceded  by  all,  and  without  opposi- 
tion, a  general  Primacy  of  Honor  and  of  respect  to 
the  Bishop  of  that  city  which  was  the  great  capital 
city  of  the  world.  This  was  not  at  first  conceded  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  formally,  nor  by  decree,  but  by 
habit  of  mind.  And  it  was  the  more  readily  con- 
ceded, since  it  involved  no  right  of  interference  on  his 
part  with  Dioceses  or  Provinces  beyond  his  own  Pro- 
vincial, or  subsequently  Patriarchal,  jurisdiction. 
Afterwards  this  generally  conceded  fact  received  the 
seal  of  confirmation  by  the  Collective  Episcopate  in 
the  Second  General  Council. 

But  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  began  to  arrogate 
to  himself,  on  this  slender  foundation,  powers  of  inter- 
ference in  the  East,  in  England,  and  in  Africa,  he  was 
instantly  resisted  ;  and,  as  he. continued,  without  au- 
thorization from  General  Council,  to  claim  greater  and 
wider  powers,  the  whole  Church  rocked  at  last  as  on 
an  earthquake,  and  broke  into  the  two  Communions, 
Greek  and  Latin  ;  the  Greek  at  the  time  being  the 
larger  of  the  two.  This  is  standing  evidence  of  the 
uncatholic  nature  of  the  claim  of  Papal  supremacy. 
But  I  am  anticipating. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  233 

All  through  this  Second,  or  Provincial  Period,  the 
Provincial  Councils  of  the  Church  and  the  Apostolic 
Canons  do  not  speak  of  any  offices  higher  than  those 
of  Bishops  and  Archbishops.  But  now  comes  a 
change  in  the  geographical  constitution  of  the  Em- 
pire j  a  corresponding  change,  therefore,  followed  in 
the  constitution  of  the  Church.  The  civil  provinces 
of  the  Empire  were  clustered  together  into  groups, 
and  a  leading  city  was  erected  for  each  group.  Let 
me  take  an  illustration,  which,  though  not  exactly 
parallel,  will  serve  our  purpose.  Suppose,  for  in- 
stance, we  should  cluster  the  New  England  States 
together  into  one  political  group  ;  and  erect  over  the 
separate  State  governors  an  Arch-governor  for  the 
whole  group  ;  and  the  Middle  States  into  another 
group ;  and  the  Southern  into  another,  and  so  on. 
This  will  give  you  to  understand  the  new  organization 
of  the  Roman  Empire  at  the  period  we  are  now  con- 
sidering. By  the  time  the  Nicene  Council  meets,  in 
the  year  325,  we  find  that  the  Church  is  accommo- 
dating Herself  to  this  new  state  of  things;  and  the 
Combined  Episcopate,  in  that  Council  assembled, 
recognizes  and  confirms  the  order  which  it  finds. 
The  Bishop  of  the  leading  city  of  each  group  of  prov- 
inces was  subsequently  called  Patriarch  or  Exarch. 


234      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

This  name  of  Patriarch  does  not,  indeed,  appear  yet 
in  conciliar  canons  j  but  nevertheless  the  Patriarchal 
powers  which  had  already  centered,  for  instance,  in 
the  Bishops  of  Rome,  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  are 
recognized  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Nicene  Council,  and 
confirmed  in  their  possessors  by  the  Combined  Epis- 
copate. Not  one  word,  however,  not  one  hint  is 
dropped  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  any  jurisdic- 
tional powers  over  the  whole  Church.  The  solitary 
reference  to  his  powers  made  by  the  Fathers  of  Nice 
is  in  their  sixth  canon.  But  this  canon  only  speaks 
of  his  Patriarchal  powers.  It  ordains  that,  as  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  possesses  authority  over  his  Patri- 
archate, (consisting,  as  has  been  said  above,  of  the 
provinces  of  Central  and  Southern  Italy  with  the  ad- 
jacent islands,)  so  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  should 
have  like  powers  over  the  provinces  of  Egypt,  Libya 
and  Pentapolis ;  and  it  confers  similar  Patriarchal 
powers  on  the  Bishop  of  Antioch.  According  to 
these  powers,  appeals  could  now  go  up  in  each  Patri- 
archate beyond  the  Archbishops  of  Provinces  and  to 
the  Patriarch  of  the  group  of  Provinces  ;  and  the 
latter  could,  furthermore,  take  order  for  the  selec- 
tion and  consecration  of  the  Archbishops  beneath 
him,    as    the    Archbishops    could    still    take    order 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  235 

for  the  consecration,  each  of  his  own  suffragan 
Bishops. 

Then  in  the  Second  General  Council,  which  met 
in  the  year  381,  we  have  this  Patriarchal  Period  more 
distinctly  emphasised  ;  for  we  have  powers  similar  to 
those  held  by  Rome,  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  recog- 
nized by  the  Combined  Episcopate  as  having  rightly 
come  to  reside  also  in  the  great  Bishops  of  Ephesus, 
Cesarea,  and  Constantinople ;  and  those  powers  are 
formally  confirmed  to  them. 

But  still  in  the  decrees  of  this  Council  we  search 
in  vain  for  the  recognition  or  confirmation  by  the 
Episcopate  of  any  general  powers,  executive,  legisla- 
tive or  judicial,  over  the  whole  Church  as  residing  in 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  We  simply  find  that  his 
Primacy  of  Honor,  and  nothing  more,  is  acknowl- 
edged, and,  for  the  first  time,  confirmed.  This  was 
in  the  year  381. 

The  reference  which  the  Council  makes  to  the 
matter  is  in  its  third  canon.  The  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople had  previously  stood  sixth  in  rank  among  the  six 
great  Bishops.  Owing  to  the  fact,  however,  that  the 
capital  of  the  Empire  had  recently  been  changed 
from  Rome  to  Constantinople,  the  Council  now  alters 
his  rank  from  the  sixth  up  to  the  second  place.     The 


236      Catholicity,  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

canon  reads ;  *'  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople  shall 
have  the  Primacy  of  Honor  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
because  that  now  Constantinople  is  new  Rome." 
The  Primacy  of  Honor :  not  a  word  about  universal 
Supremacy.  If  we  count  the  Apostolic  times  as  the 
First  Period  of  the  Church,  and  the  Provincial  as  the 
Second  Period,  we  have  reached  here  the  Third  or 
Patriarchal  Period.  The  Dioceses  are  grouped  into 
Provinces,  with  an  Archbishop  over  each.  The 
Provinces  are  grouped,  except  those  in  the  far  west 
of  Europe,  England  among  them,  and  except  a  few  in 
the  East,  which  are  still  left  autocephalous,  into 
Patriarchates  with  a  Patriarch  over  each.  The  Head 
of  the  whole  Church,  the  vicar  of  Christ,  is  the  Col- 
lective Episcopate,  speaking  and  acting  in  General 
Council.  Finally  within  the  Episcopate,  but  not  over 
it,  are  two  leading  Primacies  of  Honor ;  first,  the 
Bishop  of  Old  Rome,  and  next  to  him  the  Bishop  of 
New  Rome. 

By  the  time  the  Fourth  General  Council  met,  that 
namely  of  Chalcedon,  a  century  and  a  half  subse- 
quently, we  have  not  only  the  office  but  also  the  name 
itself  of  Patriarch  or  Exarch  mentioned  in  the  Con- 
ciliar  decrees.  Still  no  erecting  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  into  the  position  of  Autocrat ;  but  only  a  firmer 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  237 

recognition  still  of  the  self-same  post  of  honor,  with- 
out any  addition,  which  the  Episcopate  in  its  pre- 
vious Councils  had  confirmed.  For  the  XXVIIIth 
canon  of  this  Fourth  General  Council,  which  is  the 
only  one  having  a  bearing  on  the  subject,  reads  : 
*'  We,  following  in  all  things  the  decisions  "  of  the 
second  General  Council,  "do  also  determine  and 
decree  the  same  things  respecting  the  privileges  of  the 
most  holy  city  of  Constantinople,  New  Rome.  For 
the  Fathers  properly  gave  the  Primacy"  (and  by 
reference  to  the  Second  Council  we  find  that  Primacy 
was  distinctly  stated  in  Canon  III  to  be  a  Primacy 
of  Honor) — "  the  Fathers  properly  gave  the  Primacy 
to  the  throne  of  the  Elder  Rome,  because  that  was 
the  imperial  city.  And,  being  moved  with  the  same 
intention,  they  gave  equal  privileges  to  the  most  holy 
Throne  of  New  Rome  ;  judging,  with  reason,  that 
the  city  which  was  honored  with  the  sovereignty  and 
senate,  and  which  enjoyed  equal  privileges  with  the 
Elder  royal  Rome,  should  also  be  magnified  like  her 
in  ecclesiastical  matters,  being  the  second  after  her." 
Thus  the  Combined  Episcopate  in  451  confirmed 
and  explained  what  it  had  previously  done  in  the 
year  381. 

Indeed  whatever  may  be  said  touching  Chalcedon's 


238      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

famous  twenty-eighth  canon,  Catholicity  needs  only 
this  canon  in  combination  with  the  third  of  the  Sec- 
ond General  Council,  and  nothing  more,  to  prove 
beyond  dispute  her  position,  that  the  Combined  Epis- 
copate was,  according  to  the  Apostolic  Constitution 
of  the  Church,  the  Great  Vicar  of  Christ,  in  which  all 
ultimate  power  rested  ;  that  it  created  Primacies  and 
Patriarchs  within  itself;  that  it  changed  them,  and 
their  order  of  precedence,  at  will ;  and  that  it  gave 
even  his  general  Primacy  of  Honor  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  For  mark  how  the  canon  reads ;  "  The 
Fathers^"* — not  Christ — ''properly  gave  the  Primacy 
of  Honor  to  the  Throne  of  the  Elder  Rome,  because  " 
— why  ?  Because  it  was  Rome's  by  divine  right  ?  No. 
Because  it  was  St.  Peter's  throne?  No.  Because 
Christ  said, "  Thou  art  Peter,"  and  "  Feed  my  sheep  ? " 
No.  But  solely,  ^^  because  that  was  the  imperial  city.'* 
And  the  Fathers  of  the  second  General  Council,  the 
Combined  Episcopate,  gave  equal  privileges  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  because  that  had  be- 
come the  New  Rome.  What  more  do  we  need  ?  We 
could  close  our  case  just  here  with  confidence.  But 
let  us  proceed  with  history.  Indeed  the  order  of  rank 
among  the  Bishops  of  the  leading  cities  was  changed 
by  the  Combined  Episcopate  from  time  to  time  ao 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  239 

cording  to  :ircumstances.  At  first  the  chief  see  was 
Jerusalem,  and  some  authors  give  the  sequence  thus  : 
"Jerusalem,  Caesarea,  Antioch,  Rome,  Alexandria." 
But  however  this  may  have  been,  we  come,  at  any  rate, 
to  a  time  when  the  order  was  certainly  this,  namely : 
"  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Caesarea  and  Con- 
stantinople." And  then  afterwards  came  a  time  when 
the  order  was  changed  by  the  Episcopate  into  "  Rome, 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Caes- 
area, and  Jerusalem." 

To  return  ;  we  have  reached  a  time,  in  the  Third  or 
Patriarchal  Period,  when  the  Bishops  of  the  few  lead- 
ing cities  of  the  world  were  getting  up  upon  thrones ; 
and  Rome  in  the  West,  and  Constantinople  in  the 
East  on  the  highest  thrones  of  all.  The  natural 
effect  of  this  was  to  reinforce  the  arrogance  and  ambi- 
tion of  Rome.  But  it  also  providentially  increased 
the  power  of  Constantinople  to  resist  Rome,  in  the 
interest  of  the  ancient  Episcopal  Constitution  of  the 
Church,  which  Rome  was  already  striving  to  change, 
first  into  a  monarchial  form  of  government,  and  then 
into  an  absolute  Autocracy.  The  whole  East  with 
Constantinople,  together  with  Africa,  steadily  resisted 
these  growing  claims  of  Rome.  Meantime  Mahomet 
swept    through   Africa    and   wiped    out    the    noble 


240      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

churches  of  CartJiage.  The  collisions  increased  be- 
tween Constantinople  on  the  one  hand,  and  Rome  on 
the  other.  These  struggles  could  not  have  occurred, 
had  such  a  thing  been  understood  from  the  first  by 
the  Church  as  that  Supremacy  had  been  centered  in 
Rome  originally  and  by  **  divine  right."  Meantime 
Rome  was  growing  yearly  stronger  in  the  unorganized 
far  west,  invading,  with  little  or  with  ineffectual  re- 
sistance, the  outlying  Churches  of  Spain,  Gaul  and 
Britain,  which  had  not  been  clustered  into  an  organic 
Patriarchate,  and  which  looked  with  respect,  there- 
fore, and,  with  the  exception  of  England,  with  more 
and  more  willing  submission,  to  their  powerful  neigh- 
bor the  Patriarch  of  Italy. 

But  at  last,  as  I  *  have  said,  the  collision  between 
Rome  and  the  East  eventuated  in  the  great  rupture  of 
the  ninth  century.  The  four  Eastern  Patriarchates  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  one  Western  Patriarchate  of 
Rome  on  the  other,  ceased  intercommunion  with  each 
other,  and  we  have  the  Fourth  Period  of  the  Church 
begun,  in  which  the  west,  the  barbarous  part,  that  is 
to  say,  is  freed  by  excommunication  from  the  East  or 
more  enlightened  part,  and  the  East  is  freed  from  the 
overbearing  ambition  and  attempted  Papal  encroach- 
ments of  the  West ;  each  of  the  two  carrying  off  intc 


Catholicity  and  Roma7iism.  241 

isolation  from  the  other  its  part  of  the  Apostolic 
Ministry,  and  continuing  Its  succession  and  Its  con- 
sequent Sacraments  down  to  to-day. 

During  this  Fourth  Period,  the  Patriarch  of  Rome, 
thus  left  free  and  unrestrained,  grew  more  and  more 
supreme  and  autocratic  in  the  West,  until  a  similar 
rupture  occurred  in  the  Western  part  of  the  Church, 
whereby  it  separated  into  the  Anglican  and  Latin 
Communions ;  and  the  Fifth  Period  opened  ;  each 
Communion,  Roman  and  Anglican,  carrying  off  its 
part  of  the  Apostolic  ministry,  and  continuing  its  suc- 
cession down  to  to-day. 

Meantime,  during  this  Fifth  Period,  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  developed  his  Supremacy  logically  into  Infalli- 
bility ;  when  the  strain  again  became  too  great,  and 
another  rupture  took  place  ;  Rome  dividing  now  into 
New,  or  Roman  Catholics  and  Alt  or  old  Catholics. 
This  rupture  opens  the  Sixth  or  present  Period  of 
Catholicity.  In  this  period  we  have  the  division  of 
the  whole  Church  into  two  main  parts,  viz :  Catholic 
and  Roman  Catholic ;  the  Greek,  Anglican,  and  Alt- 
Catholics  being  substantially  one  in  their  firm  stand 
for  the  ancient  Episcopal  government  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  in  opposition  to  the  modern  autocratic  Papal 
government,  which  is  a  pure  absolute  monarchy. 
11 


/42     Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

Thus  we  find  that  down  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century,  when  the  Fourth  General  Council  met,  the 
Combined  Episcopate  still  retained  to  itself,  and  never 
abdicated  in  favor  of  Rome,  the  ultimate  power  and 
the  Supremacy  over  the  Church.  Indeed  to  have 
done  so  would  have  been  to  commit  the  crime  of  self- 
murder,  which  is  the  last  thing  we  are  to  expect  of  it 
in  our  historical  research.  And  this  is  an  unanswerable 
a  priori  argument  that  it  is  quite  impossible  for  Rome 
ever  to  have  acquired  the  Supremacy  of  the  whole 
Catholic  Church.  She  can  only  have  a  Supremacy  in 
her  own  part  of  the  Church,  indeed,  by  the  destruction 
of  the  rights  of  her  Bishops.  And  this  is  just  what  she 
has  at  last  succeeded  in  doing.  For  let  me  read  to 
you  the  noble  words  of  the  Archbishop  of  Halifax, 
uttered  at  the  recent  Vatican  Council  of  1870.  In 
that  Council  the  entire  body  of  Roman  Bishops,  hav- 
ing been  for  centuries  laboring  in  the  trough  of  the 
sea,  foundered  at  last  and  sank  finally  in  the  tempest- 
uous waves  of  Papal  power.  And  the  words  of  Arch- 
bishop Conolly  are  like  the  wail  of  shipwrecked  mari- 
ners when  all  hope  is  gone.     He  spoke  as  follows  : 

"  Thrice  have  I  asked  for  proof  from  Scripture  ac- 
cording to  authentic  interpretation,  from  tradition, 
and  from  Councils,  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Catholic 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  243 

Church  ought  to  be  excluded  from  the  definition  of 
dogmas  ;  but  my  request  has  not  been  complied  with. 
And  now  I  adjure  you,  like  the  blind  man  on  the  way 
to  Jericho,  to  give  us  sight,  that  we  may  believe. 
Hitherto  we  have  recognized  the  strongest  motive  for 
the  credibility  of  Catholic  doctrine  in  the  general  con- 
sent of  the  Church,  notified  through  the  Collective 
Episcopate.  This  has  been  our  shield  against  all  ex- 
ternal assailants  ;  and  by  this  powerful  magnet  we 
have  drawn  hundreds  of  thousands  into  the  Church. 
Is  this,  our  invincible  weapon  of  attack  and  defence, 
now  to  be  broken  and  trampled  under  foot ;  and  the 
thousand-headed  Episcopate,  with  the  millions  of 
faithful  at  its  back,  to  shrink  into  the  voice  and  wit- 
ness of  a  single  man.?  Let  the  deputation  prove  to 
us  that  it  has  really  always  been  the  belief  of  the 
Church  that  the  Pope  is  everything  and  the  Bishops 
nothing.  The  Council  of  Jerusalem  did  not  adopt  the 
formula  of  Peter,  but  of  John  who  spake  before  him  ; 
and  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  we  do  not  say,  '  I  believe 
in  Peter  and  his  successors,'  but,  '  I  believe  in  one 
Catholic  Church.'  We,  Bishops,  have  no  right  to 
renounce  for  ourselves  and  our  successors  the  heredi- 
tary and  original  rights  of  the  Episcopate;  to  re- 
nounce the  promise  of  Christ,  '  I  am  with  you  to  the 


z44      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

end  of  the  world.'  But  now  they  want  to  reduce  us 
to  nullities;  to  tear  the  noblest  jewel  from  our  pon- 
tifical breast-plate  ;  to  deprive  us  of  the  highest 
prerogative  of  our  office  ;  and  to  transform  the  whole 
Church,  and  the  Bishops  with  It,  into  a  rabble  of 
blind  men,  among  whom  is  one  alone  who  sees ;  so 
that  they  must  shut  their  eyes  and  believe  whatever 
he  tells  them." 

Indeed  the  attitude  of  the  minority,  of  nearly  two 
hundred  out  of  six  hundred  Bishops,  in  that  Vatican 
Council  was  pitiable.  They  made  brave  struggle  to 
retain  the  remnant  of  the  Episcopal  rights  which  pre- 
vious Papal  usurpations  had  left  them  ;  but  it  was  a 
struggle  against  invincible  logic.  For,  their  predeces- 
sors had  sowed  the  wind,  and  what  could  they  expect 
but  to  reap  the  whirlwind  t  For,  the  Roman  Episco- 
pate, having  previously  given  up  the  Primacy  of 
Honor  and  accepted  the  Papal  Supremacy  instead, 
had  already  erected  a  power  among  themselves, 
before  which  they  were  compelled  at  last  to  stand 
helpless,  as  it  easily  snatched  from  their  hands  the 
poor  remaining  fragments  of  their  rights. 

Now  as  we  find  no  Papal  Supremacy  authorized 
down  to  the  year  451,  so  too  we  look  in  vain  through 
the  acts  of  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  General  Councils  foi 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  245 

any  abdication  on  the  part  of  the  Collective  Episco- 
pate of  the  Vicariate  of  Christ  in  favor  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  And  this  brings  us  to  the  year  680.  The 
collisions  were  now  such  between  Rome  and  the 
whole  body  of  the  eastern  Bishops,  and  the  final 
rupture  between  the  two  was  so  impending  on  this 
very  question  of  the  Papal  Supremacy,  that  it  is  clear 
no  action  was  taken  then,  or  has  ever  since  been 
taken  by  the  Collective  Episcopate  of  the  whole 
Church,  to  relinquish  its  position  of  Vicar,  and  resign 
in  favor  of  the  single  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  only 
action  has  been  the  breaking  away  of  the  Anglican 
and  Alt-Catholics  from  the  Papal  position,  and  the 
adding  of  their  forces  as  reinforcements  to  the 
Eastern  Catholic  position. 

May  it  not  be  that,  as  the  See  of  Rome,  with  a 
fatal  logical  momentum,  develops  doctrine  after 
doctrine  and  practice  after  practice,  (for  how,  foi 
instance,  can  she  stop  short  of  Pope-olatry  ?)  national 
Church  after  national  Church,  finding  the  strain  be- 
coming too  severe,  will  follow  the  great  example  of 
England,  break  away  from  Rome,  and  pass  over  to 
the  side  of  the  Catholic  Communions,  until  at  last 
little  or  nothing  is  left  to  adore  the  Pope  j  and  that 
so  God  will  at  once,  in  His  own  deliberate  way,  even- 


246      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

tually  purge  Catholicity  of  Popery,  "  restore  commu 
nion  between  the  divided  members  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,"  and,  thus  over- 
ruling men's  errors,  cause  His  Church  to  stand  once 
more  a  unit  of  the  highest  order,  a  unit  differentiated 
within  itself  into  variety  and  complexity?  We  know 
not  what  is  in  God's  purposes.  But,  to  all  human 
ken,  it  would  seem  to  be  as  reasonable  to  anticipate 
that  the  Mississippi  would  pause  and  return  to  its 
source,  as  that  Rome  will  not  go  on  with  gathering 
momentum  till  she  develops  something  which  neither 
God  nor  man  can  endure. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  Papal  Supremacy  from 
another  angle.  It  certainly  belongs  to  Supremacy  to 
summon  General  Councils.  Did  the  Pope  possess  or 
exercise  this  power  in  the  early  Church  ?  It  belongs, 
and  always  has  belonged  to  the  Bishop  to  summon  a 
Diocesan  Council ;  to  the  Archbishop  to  summon  a 
Provincial,  and  to  the  Patriarch  to  summon  a  Na- 
tional or  Patriarchal  Council.  If  the  Pope  had  analo- 
gous jurisdictional  powers  over  the  whole  Church,  to 
those  which  Archbishops  have  over  their  Provinces, 
surely  he  would  have  summoned  the  General  Councils 
But  the  first  General  Councils  were  not  summoned  by 
him.     And  this  is  proof  positive  that  he  had  only  a 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  247 

Primacy  of  Honor ;  that  he  did  not  stand  to  the  whole 
Church  as  an  Archbishop  does  to  his  Province,  and 
that  the  Head  Primacy  within  the  Episcopate  was 
different  in  kind  from  the  subordinate  jurisdictional 
Primacies.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  summon 
the  First  Council  in  325;  the  Second,  in  381,  was 
actually  celebrated  against  his  will ;  he  did  not  sum- 
mon the  Third  in  431  ;  nor  the  Fourth  in  451  ;  nor 
the  Fifth  in  533  ;  this  also  was  celebrated  against  his 
wishes  j  nor  did  he  summon  the  Sixth  in  680.  There 
was  another  Council,  sometimes  called  the  Seventh. 
It  met  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighth  century.  The 
Popes  did  not  even  summon  that.  Nor  were  the 
Popes  even  consulted  about  the  summoning  of  these 
great  Councils.  In  fact  there  were  times  when  they 
even  desired  a  General  Council  but  did  not  succeed 
in  obtaining  one  ;  as  Innocent,  in  the  matter  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  and  as  Leo  learned  by  experience.  Thus 
the  claim  to  Papal  Supremacy  breaks  down  in  this 
direction.  It  was  not  until  the  Pope  was  free  from 
the  whole  P^astern  part  of  the  Church  in  the  ninth 
century,  that  we  find  him  exercising  this  sovereign 
power  of  convoking  Councils. 

Again,  it  surely  belongs  to  Supremacy  to  preside 
at  General  Councils.     But,  beginning  with  the  Coun 


248      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

cil  of  Jersualem  in  the  year  50,  St.  James, and  not  St. 
Peter,  was  its  President.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  did 
not  preside  at  the  Nicene  Council  either  in  person  or 
by  deputy,  nor,  indeed,  did  he  have  any  considerable 
influence  or  sway  there,  even  though  he  was  Bishop 
of  the  capital  city  of  the  world.  The  council  of  Sar- 
dica  was  in  design  a  General  Council,  but  in  effect 
did  not  prove  so.  In  that  synod  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
did  not  preside.  Nay  in  its  epistle  the  name  of 
Hosius  of  Corduba  is  mentioned  even  before  the 
name  of  Julius  of  Rome.  Nor  did'  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  preside  at  the  Second  General  Council.  He 
was  not  present  at  it  either  personally  or  by  legates.  At 
the  Third,  it  was  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  that  presided. 
At  the  Fourth,  it  was  the  Emperor  Marcian  and  his 
commissaries  that  presided,  though  they  did  not  of 
course  vote.  At  the  Fifth,  the  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople presided,  and  the  Patriarch  of  Rome  was  not 
present  even  by  deputy.  At  the  Sixth  Council,  in 
680,  the  emperor  Constantine  IVth  presided.  In 
fact,  as  we  look  at  history,  so  little  was  such  a  thing 
as  the  Papal  Supremacy  dreamed  of,  that  the  presi- 
dency of  these  great  Councils  either  fell  out  accord- 
ing to  the  Emperor's  wishes,  or  was  settled  by  the 
election  of  the  Fathers  present,  or  on  a  tacit  regard 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  249 

to  some  personal  eminence  in  comparison  to  others 
present. 

Again  it  would  belong  to  Supremacy  to  give  life 
and  validity,  by  its  approval,  to  the  canons  and  decrees 
of  General  Councils.  But,  beginning  with  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  Rome  should  note  that  it  was  not  St. 
Peter  who  gave  formal  confirmation  to  and  promul- 
gated its  decisions  ;  but  it  was  St.  James.  And  then 
as  for  the  other  Councils,  a  recent  Roman  Catholic 
writer,  and  a  Bishop  at  that,  proves  that  General 
Councils  have  promulgated  their  dogmatic  acts  with- 
out awaiting  the  Papal  sanction ;  and  not  only  pro- 
mulgated them,  but  put  them  into  execution. 

The  Council  of  Nice  did  not  await  the  approval  of 
St.  Sylvester  to  condemn  the  Arian  Bishops.  In  the 
Second  General  Council,  Theodosius  the  Great  gave 
out  immediately  the  constitution  relating  to  the  Mace- 
donian heretics.  The  same  thing  took  place  at  Eph- 
esus  and  Chalcedon  (the  Third  and  Fourth  General 
Councils).  Long  before  the  Holy  see's  ratification  of 
the  dogmatic  decrees  became  known,  the  penalties  for 
its  violation  had  been  executed.  Clearly  then,  by  an- 
cient right,  the  ultimate  authority  in  the  Church  rests 
in  the  Collective  Episcopate,  and  not  in  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ;  they,  not  the  Pope,  being  the  Vicar  of  Christ. 
11* 


250      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romamsm, 

But  the  Romanist  will  say  to  you,  why,  then,  were 
the  canons  of  Councils  sent  to  the  Pope  for  his  con- 
firmation, if  the  sanction  of  the  see  of  Rome  was  not 
necessary  to  their  validity  ?  But  the  answer  is,  that  it 
was  customary  for  canons  of  General  Councils  to  be 
sent  to  all  the  Bishops  ;  and  of  course  to  so  eminent 
a  Bishop,  also,  as  was  always  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Nevertheless,  somehow,  the  canons  of  the  Second 
General  Council  were  not  transmitted  to  Rome  even 
for  its  information.  As  for  the  Fifth  General  Council, 
it  actually  anathematized  Pope  Vigilius.  Besides, 
touching  this  entire  subject  of  the  confirmation  of  the 
Decrees  of  General  Councils,  a  very  limited  knowledge 
of  ecclesiastical  history  will  convince  one,  that  equals 
confirm  the  decrees  of  equals,  and  often  inferiors  con- 
firm the  decrees  of  their  superiors.  The  Faith  and 
the  decrees  of  Nice  were  confirmed  not  only  by  the 
General  Councils  of  Constantinople,  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon,  but  also  by  particular  councils,  such  as 
those  of  Sardica  and  Jerusalem.  In  the  collection  of 
letters  written  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  the 
Emperor  by  the  Bishops,  whom  he  had  consulted  on 
the  authority  of  this  Council,  we  find  many  times  this 
formula,  or  similar  ones,  viz  :  "  We  consent  to  the 
decrees  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  which  we  confirm  b) 


Catholicity  iind  Romanism.  251 

our  Faith  and  our  confession."  Decrees  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  have  been  also  confirmed  by  particular 
councils.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  see  in  any  confir- 
mations of  the  decrees  of  any  councils,  even  by  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  in  the  first  nine  centuries,  acts  of 
superior  authority.  All  these  confirmations  were  ex- 
pressions of  that  reception  which  was  generally  ac- 
corded by  all  portions  of  the  Church  to  the  acts  of 
all  really  General  Councils.  Surely  the  decretal  of 
Pope  Vigilius,  by  which  he  adhered  to  the  Fifth  Gen- 
eral Council,  was  far  from  being  an  act  of  absolute 
stiperiority.  On  the  other  hand  it  carries  with  it  the 
seal  of  deference  and  of  submission. 

Again,  the  powers  of  Supremacy  are  three-fold  ; 
legislative,  judicial  and  administrative.  The  Bishop 
of  Rome  claims  to-day  the  first ;  namely,  that  his  will, 
expressed  by  precept,  decree  or  proclamation,  shall 
be  law.     How  was  it  anciently? 

Before  the  Nicene  Council  in  325,  the  Church  had 
no  other  laws  than  the  divine  laws,  together  with  those 
which  each  church  enacted  for  itself  in  Provincial 
synod,  and  those  which  were  propagated  from  one  to 
another  by  imitation  or  compliance.  Hence  several 
churches  varied  in  points  of  order  and  discipline  ac- 
cording to  local  circumstances.     No  one  Bishop  then 


252      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

could  impose  his  laws  upon  another  territory  than  his 
own.  When,  once,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  attempted  to 
induce  several  churches  of  Asia-Minor  to  keep  Easter 
on  the  same  day  on  which  it  was  kept  in  the  West, 
he  not  only  met  with  stout  resistance  but  with  sharp 
rebuke.  This  whole  Easter  difficulty,  indeed,  which 
was  a  serious  one  in  early  times,  was  not  settled  by 
the  Bishops  of  Rome  at  all.  Not  until  a  General 
Council  legislated  on  it  did  the  entire  Church  acqui- 
esce in  one  rule.  To  show  the  condition  of  things  at 
that  time,  let  me  quote  from  St.  Cyprian.  He  says, 
"  For  none  of  us  makes  himself  a  Bishop  of  Bishops, 
or  by  tyrannical  terror  compels  his  colleagues  to  a 
necessity  of  obedience;  since  every  Bishop,  accord- 
ing to  the  license  of  his  liberty  and  power,  hath  his 
own  freedom,  and  can  no  more  be  judged  by  another, 
than  he  himself  can  judge  another."  Can  we  for  a 
moment  conceive  of  a  Roman  Bishop  to-day  writing 
thus  ?  Would  not  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  if  such  letter 
reached  him  to-day,  give  very  prompt  evidence  to  its 
writer,  that,  however  it  may  have  been  in  earlier  cen- 
turies, one  Bishop  could,  in  the  nineteenth  century  at 
any  rate,  be  judged  most  effectually,  and  most  practi- 
cally, too,  so  far  as  any  farther  exercise  of  his  Episco 
pal  authority  was  concerned,  by  another  ? 


Catholicity  and  Romanism,  253 

Secondly ;  the  Pope  claims  the  right  of  appellate 
jurisdiction ;  that  all  causes  of  weight  be  referred  to 
him.  How  was  it  with  this  in  the  fourth  century? 
The  fifth  canon  of  Nice  provides  that  causes  may  be 
appealed  from  Dioceses  up  to  the  Provincial  synods  ; 
but  not  a  word  about  appeals  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
If  he  had  such  judicial  power  from  the  beginning,  as 
there  were  so  many  occasions  during  those  early  cen- 
turies for  exercising  such  power,  there  would  have 
been  extant  in  history  many  clear  instances  of  it.  But 
this  is  not  the  case.  Rome  has  done  the  best  she 
could  with  this  argument.  Out  of  a  multitude  of 
cases,  she  has  whipped  up  two  or  three  cases  only, 
and  these  quite  impertinent  to  the  issue.  When  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  claimed  certain  rights  over  the 
churches  of  Cyprus,  Innocent,  the  Roman  Patriarch, 
sustained  him  in  his  pretentions.  But  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  judged  otherwise,  and  prevailed.  Where, 
then,  was  the  Pope's  universal  and  immediate  juris- 
diction in  the  year  431  ?  When,  subsequently,  the 
Popes  set  up  this  claim  of  appellate  jurisdiction, 
divers  synods,  some  great,  some  smaller,  protested 
against,  and  passed  acts  contrary  to  it.  So  we  see 
resistance  to  the  growing  claims  of  the  Pope  on  every 
hand.     In  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  a  Coun- 


254      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism, 

cil  (not  however  a  General  Council)  met  at  a  place 
called  Sardica.  It  passed  a  decree  that,  under  certain 
circumstances,  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  should,  as  a 
personal  privilege^  appoint  judges  to  hear  the  cause  of 
a  Bishop  on  the  spot,  and  in  the  second  instance  \ 
with  the  right  to  send  legates  representing  himself. 
This  power  was  not  granted  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome, 
but  to  Julius  personally.  On  the  strength  of  this 
(albeit  it  was  not  a  decree  of  any  General  Council) 
subsequent  Popes  attempted  to  set  up  their  claim 
of  appellate  jurisdiction.  But  it  was  never  recog- 
nized by  the  Eastern  or  by  the  African  Church. 
Indeed  the  African  Bishops  in  419  wrote  to  Boniface 
ist.  "We  are  resolved  not  to  admit  this  arrogant 
claim." 

In  the  code  of  the  Fourth  General  Council,  in  the 
middle  of  the  Fifth  century,  there  is  no  mention  what- 
ever of  the  see  of  Rome  as  an  ultimate  court  of 
appeal,  though  its  Primacy  is  implied  throughout. 
"  Hence  when  the  subject  of  its  appellate  jurisdiction 
came  before  the  heads  of  the  African  Church,  among 
whom  was  St.  Augustine,  their  deliberate  finding, 
which  they  reported  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  on 
which  they  acted  themselves,  was  as  follows;  Thai 
the  Nicene  decrees  plainly  committed  both  the  infe- 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  255 

rior  clergy  and  the  Bishops  themselves  to  their  own 
Metropolitans  ;  '  having  most  wisely  and  justly  pro- 
vided that  all  things  should  be  determined  in  the  very 
places  where  they  arise  j  *  *  *  especially  when  every 
man  has  liberty,  if  he  be  offended  with  the  decision 
of  his  judges,  to  appeal  to  a  Provincial  Council,  or,  if 
need  be,'  where  ?  to  the  Pope  ?  No  /  but '  to  a  General 
Council' " 

.  Nor  did  Rome  exercise  the  third  right  of  Su- 
premacy, namely,  general  administrative  power  during 
those  ages.  In  fact  a  general  and  wide  spread 
administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  universe  from 
Rome  was  a  sheer  impossibility.  For  it  could  not 
take  place  without  a  certain  machinery  and  system, 
clerical  officials  and  the  like.  But  nothing  of  this 
kind  was  dreamt  of  in  Rome  during  those  centuries. 
"  The  Bishops  of  Rome,"  says  the  author  of  Janus, 
"  could  exclude  neither  individuals  nor  churches  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church  Universal.  They  could 
withdraw  their  own  Church  from  communion  with 
particular  Bishops  or  Churches,  and  they  often  did 
so  ;  but  this  in  no  wise  affected  the  relations  of  those 
Bishops  or  Churches  with  other  Bishops  or  Churches. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  Rome  admitted  into  its 
Communion  one  excommunicated  by  other  Churches 


256     Catholicity^  Protestantis7n  and  Romamsin, 

this  did  not  bring  that  one  into  Communion  with  any 
other  Church." 

In  the  Third  century  Firmilian  uses  the  following 
language  to  Pope  Stephen  :  "  How  mighty  a  sin  hast 
thou  heaped  to  thyself  in  cutting  thyself  off  from  so 
many  flocks  !  For  do  not  deceive  thyself  \  it  is  thou 
who  hast  cut  off  thine  own  self;  he  is  the  real 
schismatic,  who  makes  himself  an  apostate  from  the 
communion  of  the  Church's  unity." 

There  are  several  points  which  a  Roman  Cath- 
olic will  urge  on  the  attention  of  an  ill- instructed 
Churchman  calculated  to  confound  him.  I  can  only 
find  time  to  instance  one  now.  He  will  cite  cases 
where  the  Bishop  of  Rome  went  beyond  the  bounds 
of  his  Patriarchate  to  interfere  in  the  ordination  of 
Bishops.  And  he  will  say,  Does  not  this  show  that 
the  Pope  had  powers  of  supremacy  co-extensive  with 
the  Church  ?  But  be  not  hasty.  For,  a  more  careful 
knowledge  of  facts  shows,  that  other  leading  Bishops 
did  the  self-same  thing.  His  argument  does  not 
sustain  his  claim  therefore ;  for  no  one  ever  thought, 
because  of  the  same  action  on  the  part  of  other  great 
Bishops,  to  pretend  therefore  that  they  ever  held 
universal  control.  Indeed  it  not  seldom  happened, 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  other  great  Bishops 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  257 

(who.  by  the  way,  were  all  of  them  then  called 
"  Popes  ")  were  checked  on  such  occasions,  and  that 
their  emissaries  were  dismissed  with  disgrace,  for  in- 
terfering with  a  jurisdiction  beyond  their  bounds. 
Such  was  the  case  with  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  when 
he  attempted  to  interfere  in  Cyprus.  And  what  is 
more  than  all.  and  decisive  of  the  Pope  of  Rome's 
case,  the  second  canon  of  the  Second  General 
Council  positively  checked  and  regulated  such  irregu- 
larity, by  enacting  in  reference  to  the  matter,  that  no 
one  of  the  great  Patriarchs  go  beyond  his  Patriarch- 
ate and  enter  upon  churches  without  his  borders  ''  for 
the  purpose  of  ordaining,  or  exercising  any  other  eccle- 
siastical functions,''  thus  bringing  confusion  into  those 
Churches.  The  fact  is,  certain  ecclesiastical  customs 
were  growing.  Power  is  apt  to  accumulate  at  centers. 
Patriarchs  were  invading  Provinces  that  did  not 
belong  to  them.  And  the  object  of  this  canon  was  to 
check  this  special  growth  \  to  recognize  it,  indeed,  as 
far  as  it  had  gone,  but  to  stop  it  just  there,  and  fix  the 
Church  for  the  future  in  the  condition  in  which  It 
then  was ;  the  Patriarchs  to  have  no  further  powers. 
This  left  certain  Provinces,  and  among  them  Cyprus 
and  England,  under  no  PatriarcJi,  but  autonomic  and 
autocephalous.     Now  this  canon  has  never  been  re 


^5^      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

pealed,  and  is  binding  to-day  on  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  on  the  whole  Church.  It  is  standing  evidence 
against  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Patriarch  to  univer- 
sal power.  It  is  standing  evidence  that  Rome  has 
altered,  at  least  in  the  Latin  part  of  the  Church,  the 
Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Two  hundred 
years  afterward,  in  the  year  six  hundred,  Rome  en- 
tered upon  the  domain  of  the  British  Church,  which 
from  the  first  had  lain  outside  her  Patriarchate,  and 
had  governed  itself.  And  this  canon  is  standing 
evidence  that,  from  a.  d.  596  to  a.  d.  1539,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  an  intruder  into  and  a  usurper 
of  powers  in  the  English  part  of  the  Church,  contrary 
to  the  will  of  a  General  Council.  It  is,  indeed,  even 
a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Saxon  part  of  England 
was  very  much  indebted  to  St.  Augustine  for  its  con- 
version to  Christianity.  For,  everywhere  else  except 
in  Kent  it  was  the  clergy  in  the  ancient  British  and 
Scottish  succession  that  effected  that  conversion.  And 
the  canon  is  standing  evidence  that,  to-day,  the  Ro- 
mish church  in  England  is  a  schismatical  body. 

I  need  not  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  two 
topics,  which  I  have  had  the  honor  of  discussing 
before  you,  by  no  means  exhaust  the  important  differ- 
ences between  Catholicity  and  Romanism.     But  I  an» 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  259 

sure  you  did  not  expect  of  me,  in  three  Conferences, 
that  which  others  have  only  been  able  to  compass  in 
volumes.  And  this  is  my  consolation  as  I  bid  you 
farewell,  and  reluctantly  retire  from  an  unfinished 
work.  Enough,  however,  I  trust,  has  been  said  to 
satisfy  you  that  a  surrender  to  Rome  is  treason  to 
Catholicity. 

I  cannot,  however,  pass  finally  from  this  rostrum, 
without  giving  one  most  important  caution  concern- 
ing controversial  books  on  the  Roman  side.  In  the 
first  place  "Latin  translations  of  Greek  Fathers,  unless 
they  are  carefully  compared  with  the  Greek  originals, 
can  have  little  dependence  placed  on  them  ;  as  they 
frequently  bear  the  unmistakable  stamp  of  Western 
prejudice."  The  interpolations  into  the  text  of  the 
Fathers,  the  alterations  of  that  text,  and  the  down- 
right forgeries  of  the  past  are,  as  a  fact,  so  numer- 
ous, so  extensive,  and  so  vital,  that  it  requires  years 
of  careful  study  on  all  sides,  and  long  periods  of 
suspended  judgment  as  to  alleged  proofs,  and  the 
sifting  of  many  books  antagonistic  to  each  other,  be- 
fore one  who  is  not  a  profound  historian,  or  a  critical 
Grecian  or  Latinist,  can  come  to  any  really  intelligent 
conclusion.  There  had  been  many  interpolations  and 
forgeries  in  the  interest  of  the  Roman  see  before  the 


26o      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

ninth  century  But  in  the  year  eight  hundred  and 
forty-five,  when  criticism  and  general  intelligence  in  the 
west  were  at  their  lowest  ebb,  there  appeared  what 
is  now  known  as  the  Isidorian  or  False  Decretals. 
For  two  hundred  years  the  enormity  and  clumsiness 
of  those  bold  forgeries  have  been  exposed,  and  uni- 
versally admitted.  Yet  those  Decretals  were  received 
as  genuine  for  seven  long  centuries.  Marvelously 
enough,  although  the  present  Papal  power  was  mainly 
built  up  by  and  through  them,  it  stands  to-day  as  a 
permanent  edifice,  long  after  the  miserable  frame- 
work, the  girders  and  beams  of  the  Forged  Decretals, 
on  which  much  of  it  rested,  had  fallen  from  with- 
in it  and  been  burned  up  as  useless  rubbish  amid 
universal  jeers.  But  not  only  does  the  structure  of  the 
Papal  power  remain,  after  that  which  sustained  it  has 
disappeared ;  but  something  else  remains.  For  those 
Decretals,  so  thoroughly  trusted,  in  their  day,  and 
the  interpolations  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  were 
used  by  earnest  and  sincere  men,  like  St.  Anselm,  for 
quotations  and  proofs  in  favor  of  Romanism.  Later 
writers  just  as  sincerely  quoted  these  proofs,  not  from 
the  originals,  but  from  St.  Anselm,  Gratian  and 
others.  And,  as  proof-quotations,  they  became  stock- 
in-trade  for  still  later  writers,  equally  sincere.      So 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  261 

that,  to-day,  the  fragments  of  whole  centuries  of  fraud, 
mistaken  zeal  and  pious  credulousness,  mingled  with 
better  material,  lie  marvelously  confused  in  the 
strata  of  controversy.  This  complicates  matters  in- 
expressibly. Then  again,  on  the  other  side,  there  is 
a  vast  amount  of  Protestant  misrepresentation  afloat 
concerning  Roman  Catholicism,  which  further  com- 
plicates matters.  Now  to  anyone  who  knows  all  these 
facts,  to  anyone  who  has,  mayhap,  studied  the  ques- 
tion between  Rome  and  Catholicity,  more  or  less 
for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  who  has  been  often 
puzzled  and  astonished  at  false  statements  on  both 
sides,  oftener  still  disgusted  at  the  confusion,  oc- 
casionally almost  ready  to  give  up  the  question  in 
despair,  to  such  an  one,  I  say,  the  sight  of  young  men 
and  women,  and  of  the  middle-aged,  devoting  the  mere 
spare  time  of  a  few  weeks  or  months  to  the  reading  of 
two  or  three  popular  controversial  works,  that  are 
placed  in  their  hands  by  Roman  Catholic  propagan- 
dists, and  then  leaping  to  a  conclusion  on  the  whole 
complicated  matter,  rushing  over  to  Rome,  turning 
instantly,  and,  with  new  born  zeal,  hurling  back  hot- 
shots  at  the  Anglican  Mother  that  bore  them,  and 
Whom  they  never  understood  or  appreciated  in 
Her  true  Catholicity  when  they  were  with   Her,   is 


202     Catholicity^  Protestantism  aftd  Romanism. 

saddening  indeed,  not  to  say  pitiable  and  contempti 
ble. 

There  is  another  thing  I  cannot  refrain  from  say- 
ing. It  has  been  admirably  put  by  the  English 
"  Church  Review."  I  have  not  its  language,  but  I 
remember  its  idea.  It  is  this.  The  theory  of  the 
Anglican  Church  is  thoroughly  Catholic.  But,  owing 
to  Continental  raids  made  upon  Her  prior  to  and  sub- 
sequently to  the  times  of  Cromwell,  ihQ  practice  of  Her 
Priests  and  people  happens  temporarily  to  be  left  to- 
day, in  too  many  ways,  un-Catholic.  Her  Catholic 
theory  will  inevitably  bring  the  practice  of  Her  Priests 
and  people  out  right  in  the  end.  It  is  steadily,  and 
as  rapidly  as  we  could  expect,  doing  so  now.  Let  us 
not  toss  our  shoulder  and  curl  our  lip  impatiently, 
like  so  many  flippant  boarding-school  misses,  because 
our  un-Catholic  practices  are  so  slow  in  disappearing. 
On  the  other  hand  the  theory  of  Romanism  on  many 
fundamental  points  is  thoroughly  un-Catholic,  and 
hopelessly  so ;  while  Rome's  practice,  it  is  true,  still  con- 
tinues in  many  respects  to  be  Catholic.  Now  a  calm 
and  sensible  mind,  at  any  rate,  will  find  far  less  in- 
tellectual difficulty  in  putting  up,  for  a  while,  with 
deficient  practice  in  a  Body  Whose  theory  is  wholly 
Catholic,  than  in  accepting  fundamentally  false  and 


^  Catholicity  and  Romanism,  263 

uncatholic  theories  for  the  sake  of  some  perfection  in 
practice  or  ritual. 

Although  Christ  did  not  give  the  Primacy  to  St, 
Peter,  yet  of  course  He  knew  that  St.  Peter's  succes- 
sors in  Rome  would,  in  after  time,  receive  the  Primacy 
through  ecclesiastical  regulation,  and  because  Rome 
was  the  capital  of  the  world.  Looking,  therefore,  on 
one  occasion  upon  St.  Peter,  He  solemnly  said  to 
him  "  Simon,  behold,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you 
that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat ;  but  I  have  prayed  for 
thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not.  And  when  thou  art  con- 
verted, strengthen  thy  brethren."  And  yet  Rome 
amuses  Herself,  after  this,  with  the  idea  that  he,  who 
was  once  Primate,  has  been  all  along  invulnerable. 
By  this,  our  Lord's  solemn  prophecy,  Rome,  then,  was 
sooner  or  later  to  fall  into  such  plight  as  to  need  to 
turn  from  her  errors;  "when  thou  art  converted." 
But  meantime,  also,  while  she  was  in  her  false  position, 
the  brethren,  it  seems,  were  to  be  weak  all  around. 
Is  it  not  indeed  so  to-day  ?  Rome  herself  is  by  no 
means  the  happy  family  she  has  the  shrewdness  to 
appear  to  the  world  to  be.  And  is  it  not  true,  that 
all  the  religious  divisions  and  weaknesses  within  the 
whole  Catholic  Church,  and  without  Its  borders  too, 
can  be  traced  back  for  their  source  to  the  ambition 


<04      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

and  errors  of  Rome  ?  Ah,  gentlemen,  but  when 
Rome  is  converted,  then  indeed  shall  you  see,  as  the 
Lord  said,  the  brethren  strengthened  all  around,  and 
Christianity  marching  as  one  organized  and  invinci- 
ble Catholic  Body  against  Scepticism,  the  world  and 
Satan. 

Again,  Rome  is  apt  to  take  certain  remarks  to  St. 
Peter,  and  apply  them  unwarrantably  to  herself.  Very 
well,  then,  why  is  she  so  apt  to  forget  others  ?  She 
forgets  that  solemn  prophecy,  "Thou  shalt  deny  Me 
thrice;"  and  that  her  Peter  of  the  centuries  must 
sooner  or  later,  in  an  agony,  of  repentance,  "  go  out" 
and  weep  bitterly.  Hath  Rome  denied  Christ  once  ? 
She  hath,  at  any  rate,  struck  down  His  Royal,  visible 
Body,  the  Episcopate,  saying,  "  Away  with  you ; " 
and  substituted  her  Pope  as  Ruler  of  the  Church  in 
Its  stead.  Hath  she  denied  Christ  twice  ?  She 
hath,  at  any  rate,  struck  down  His  Body  the  Church 
as  the  Organ  to  us  of  the  truth,  with  curses  and  anathe- 
mas, too,  saying  "  Away  with  you,"  "-I  am  the  truth." 
Hath  she  denied  Him  thrice  ?  She  hath,  at  any  rate, 
reared  between  Him  and  us  a  mediatrix,  as  though 
He,  the  loving  Brother,  That  died  for  us,  needs  to  be 
appeased  before  we  can  steal  to  Him  and  lie  directlv 
upon  His  bosom. 


Catholicity  and  Romanism.  265 

She  has  forgotten  that  prophecy  in  action,  too, 
namely ;  St.  Paul  resisting  St.  Peter,  when  he  was 
wrong,  to  the  face.  One  does  not  desire  to  be  fanci- 
ful. But  one  cannot  help  thinking  of  the  great  feud 
to-day  as  a  possible  fulfilment  of  that  prophecy ; 
namely,  the  feud  between  the  mighty  Anglican  Com- 
munion said  to  be  founded  by  St.  Paul,  and  whose 
greatest  temple  is  the  Cathedral  of  London,  and  the 
vast  Communion  said  to  be  founded  by  St.  Peter, 
whose  greatest  temple  is  the  Cathedral  of  Rome. 

One  more  word  and  I  have  done.  The  Catholic 
Church  is  Christ's  Body.  And  Satan's  warfare  on  the 
Human  part  of  the  God-man  did  not  cease  at  Calvary. 
As  Satan  nailed  Him  to  the  Cross,  so  he  follows  Him 
with  mighty  smitings  through  the  centuries.  And 
Rome's  fond  idea,  that  Christ's  Body  is  something 
that  cannot  possibly  show  such  ghastly  wounds  as 
non-intercommunion  between  Its  parts,  or  such 
bruises  anywhere  as  a  fundamental  local  alteration  in 
Its  governmental  structure,  is  but  a  Utopian  dream  ; 
it  is  to  forget  the  swollen  back,  the  bones  stretched 
out  of  joint,  the  nails,  the  thorns  and  the  spear. 

But,  meantime,  it  is  a  consolation  to  know,  that 
God  is,  nevertheless,  so  overruling  the  ambition  of  the 
See  of  Rome  and  its  effects  in  having  produced  the 
12 


266      Catholicity^  Protestantism  and  Romanism^ 

Greek,  Russo-Greek,  Anglican,  Alt-Catholic  and 
other  Communions,  as  to  diiferentiate  His  great 
Catholic  Church,  and  develop  It  from  the  imperfect 
unity  of  simplicity  into  the  perfect  unity  of  mu*ti- 
plexity  and  harmonious  variety. 


SERMON. 

The   Object  ane  Meaning  of  the  Catholic  Movement 
IN  THE  Anglican  Communion. 

Precuhed  at  Zion  Churchy  Newport^  R.  Z,  at  the  request 
of  the  Rector  of  that  Church. 

Immanuel.— IsA.  vii.  14. 

Nearly  half  a  century  ago  a  remarkable  fraternity 
of  young  men  arose  in  Oxford.  Perceiving  that  the 
Prayer  Book  taught  the  doctrines  which  were  set  forth 
by  the  Early  Church,  but  that  Churchmen  generally  in 
1833  did  not  hold  them,  these  young  men  issued  the 
"  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  with  the  design  of  arousing 
the  minds  of  Churchmen,  and  bringing  them  into 
agreement  with  the  statements  of  the  Prayer  Book  and 
the  teachings  of  the  Early  Church.  Thus  was  inaugu- 
rated the  great  Catholic  movement  in  the  Anglican 
Communion. 

To  a  non-Churchman,  unfamiliar  with  the  career 
of  the  English  Church  from  1620  to  1833,  the  state- 
ment that  She  should  teach  one  thing,  and  Her 
members  believe  another,  would  seem  not  only  para- 


268  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

doxical  but  incredible.  But,  without  delaying  this 
discourse  by  entering  upon  History,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  when  Cromwell  assumed  the  reins  of 
power,  he  crushed  the  Church  of  England  ;  he  drove 
Her  clergy  from  their  livings ;  and  for  years  the 
people  of  England  were  indoctrinated  by  Presbyte- 
rian, Independent  and  Baptist  preachers.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  when  Cromwell  passed  away  there 
was  little  change  in  this  respect.  For,  six  thousand 
out  of  the  eight  thousand  clergy  who,  under  Charles 
lid,  occupied  the  Rectories  of  England  and  drew  the 
tithes,  were  simply  Puritans  who  had  "conformed." 
Hating  the  Church  and  Her  doctrines  and  Her  disci- 
pline while  they  were  under  the  Commonwealth,  how 
could  they  love  and  teach  them  under  the  Restora- 
tion ?  The  "  conforming "  Puritan  was  a  man  who 
used  the  Prayer  Book  to  some  extent,  but  taught  the 
people  doctrines  antagonistic  to  its  prayers,  and  prac- 
tices in  violation  of  its  rubrics.  Thus,  practically, 
there  were,  and  for  a  long  time  continued  to  be. 
anomalously  enough,  two  fountains  of  teaching  in  the 
Church.  (The  Roman  part  of  the  Church  was  simi- 
larly afflicted  in  the  eighteenth  century.)  One  of 
these  fountains  was  the  Prayer  Book,  the  other  was 
the  pulpit.      The  Prayer  Book,  which  contains  the 


The  Anglican  Comfnunion.  269 

teaching  of  the  Church,  did  not  hold  its  own,  as  a 
teacher,  against  the  pulpit,  which  poured  forth  Puri- 
tanism to  the  people.  It  is  not  strange,  in  the  secu- 
lar confusion  of  the  day,  that  it  was  some  time  before 
this  state  of  things  could  be  reversed  ;  that  it  should 
be  a  slow  process  for  the  silent  Prayer  Book  to  begin 
to  tell  at  last  in  the  Church  against  the  persistent 
voice  of  the  pulpit.  The  pulpit  has  a  w^ay  of  sending 
its  teachings  and  its  teachers  into  the  Theological 
Schools,  and  thus  of  perpetuating  its  notions,  and 
keeping  them  for  a  while,  even  on  the  Episcopal 
Bench.  The  secular  confusion  of  the  time  paralyzed 
the  arm  of  that  discipline  which  is  the  mother  of  order 
in  the  Church.  Besides,  an  individual,  here  and 
there,  may  change  his  belief  quickly,  but  a  nation, 
once  indoctrinated,  changes  its  belief  slowly.  What- 
ever the  Prayer  Book  may  have  taught,  the  English 
people,  once  fairly  in  the  current  of  Puritanism, 
floated  heavily  and  with  steady  momentum  down  that 
current  through  the  eighteenth  century.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  that,  forty  years  after  Cromwell,  there 
were  Bishops  on  the  English  Church  thrones  who 
denied  Episcopacy,  were  opposed  to  the  surplice,  sus- 
tained sectarians,  loved  even  Unitarianism,  counseled 
the  abolition  of  Episcopacy  in  Scotland,  and  were  op- 


270  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

posed  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  And  then  consider 
the  state  of  things  in  the  reigns  of  the  Georges  ;  and 
it  will  no  longer  seem  incredible  that  the  members  of 
a  National  Church  can  for  a  while  hold  doctrines 
quite  different  from  those  held  by  the  Church  to  which 
they  nominally  belong.  But  at  last  the  Prayer  Book 
began  to  turn  the  tide,  and  to  send  those  it  had  in- 
doctrinated into  the  pulpit 

The  intent  of  the  Catholic  movement  of  to-day  is 
not  to  Catholicize  the  Anglican  Church ;  She  has 
always  continued  Catholic.  But  it  is  to  awaken  Her 
members  to  the  Catholic  character  of  their  Church. 

The  Oxford  Divines  may  not  have  forecast,  at  the 
time  they  issued  the  "Tracts,"  the  full  grandeur  of 
the  Revolution  they  had  inaugurated ;  they  may  not 
have  anticipated  the  many  nooks  and  departments  of 
inner  spiritual  life  and  of  outer  human  need,  into 
which  the  new  movement  would  eventually  roll  and 
break  with  upheaving  effect.  But  they  comprehended, 
at  any  rate,  its  main  purport. 

That  the  Oxford  Tracts  should  rouse  violent  opposi- 
tion was  of  course  to  be  expected.  It  seemed  an  easy 
thing  to  stamp  the  new  movement  down  and  out  of 
existence.  And  indeed  the  heaviest  odds  were,  and 
have  continued  to  be,  against  it.     But,  as  that  which 


The  Anglican  Communion.  271 

began  to  be  preached  by  the  Holy  Apostles  in  the 
year  33  (although  the  power  of  the  Roman  Empire 
was  hurled  upon  it  to  crush  it),  exhibited,  neverthe- 
less, a  stubborn  life  and  an  ever  increasing  growth, 
so  this,  which  began  to  be  preached  in  the  year 
1833,  has  exhibited  the  same  phenomena  of  life 
and  growth.  Why  is  this  ?  Simply  because  the 
movement  of  1833  is  but  a  resurrection  of  the  move- 
ment of  A.  D.  33.  In  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
thinking  world  rejected  that  adulterated  presentment 
of  Christianity  known  as  Romanism  ;  because  it  was 
tyranny.  In  the  nineteenth  century  the  thinking 
world  has  rejected  that  other  adulterated  present- 
ment of  Christianity  known  as  Protestantism  ;  because 
it  is  utter  anarchy.  Is  it  not  possible  that  that  an- 
cient Catholicity,  which  is  neither  Roman  nor  Protest- 
ant, and  which  once  conquered  the  world  in  less  than 
four  centuries,  should,  now  that  it  has  roused  from  its 
long  obscurity,  regain  that  world  again  which  Roman- 
ism and  Protestantism  have  between  them  lost  ?  We 
see  what  Romanism  and  Protestantism  have  done  in  a 
thousand  years.  Is  it  unreasonable  to  ask  that  the 
third  presentment  of  Christianity,  which  was  once 
victorious,  be  tried  again  for  a  century  or  two  ? 

When  such  an  exceptional  movement  as  this  Cath 


272  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

olic  revival  takes  place,  there  comes  a  time  at  last 
when  its  honest  and  earnest-minded  opponents  pause 
in  their  opposition,  and  ask  "  What  does  it  mean  ? " 
Such  a  time  as  that  is  dawning  now.  Already  there 
are  some  persons,  and  their  number  is  yearly  increas- 
ing, who,  even  though  they  do  not  propose  to  become 
Catholics,  are  ready  to  listen  dispassionately  to  an 
answer  to  the  question,  "  What  is  the  object  and 
meaning  of  this  movement  ?"  You,  as  Evangelicals, 
have  asked  this  question  through  your  Rector,  and 
you  have  at  once  made  one  at  home  among  you,  who 
comes,  not  in  the  spirit  of  a  propagandist,  but  to  speak 
to  brethren  who  will  kindly  listen,  even  though  they 
may  continue  to  differ  with  him. 

At  the  outset  one  asks  himself,  Is  there  not  some 
single  statement,  that  will  comprise  within  its  scope 
the  object  of  the  Catholic  movement?  If  there  be 
such  statement,  it  is  perhaps  this,  namely  :  The  main 
purport  of  the  Catholic  movement,  is  the  re-preaching 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  in  its  integrity  \  and 
then  come,  logically,  the  practical  application  of  that 
doctrine  to  public  and  private  worship,  its  interior  ap- 
plication to  the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul,  and  its  exterior 
application  to  the  modes  in  which  misery,  poverty  and 
sin  are  to  be  treated.     Of  course  this  practical  appli 


The  Anglican  Communion,  273 

cation  strikes  against  old  modes  and  habits  and  preju- 
dices with  uprooting  effect. 

Unswerving  fidelity  to  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  accounts  for  every  new  energy  the  move- 
ment has  put  forth ;  for  every  unexpected  angle  at 
which  its  intense  forces  have  darted  out;  for  every 
book  of  devotion  it  has  printed ;  for  every  altar-candle 
it  has  lighted  ;  for  every  community  of  Sisters  or 
Brothers  it  has  organized  j  for  every  Early  Father  it 
has  translated ;  for  every  reversal  it  has  made  from 
Choral  Matins  and  plain  Celebration,  to  plain  Matins 
and  Choral  Celebration  ;  for  the  extemporaneous 
mode  of  preaching  it  has  adopted  in  place  of  preach- 
ing from  a  manuscript ;  for  every  theological  book 
and  pamphlet  it  has  written ;  for  every  censer  it  has 
swung ;  for  every  mission  it  has  preached  to  sin- 
ners, and  every  quiet  and  holy  retreat  it  has  held 
for  earnest  souls ;  for  every  Altar  and  Church  it  has 
restored  and  glorified;  for  every  confession  it  has 
heard  ;  for  every  guild  for  work  among  the  poor  it  has 
organized  ;  for  every  Early  Communion  it  has  cele- 
brated ;  and  every  laboring  man's  club  and  reading- 
room  it  has  opened ;  for  every  Three  Hours  Agony 
Service  it  has  held  ;  every  bannered  and  vestmented 
procession  it  has  thrown  out  on  Good  Fridays  into 


274  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

the  slums  of  cities  ;  every  confraternity  for  combined 
prayer  it  has  formed ;  every  point  of  asceticism  it  has 
urged;  every  public  Meditation  it  has  given;  every 
cassock  and  chasuble  it  has  worn ;  every  convent 
and  school,  the  corner  stone  of  which  it  has  laid  ;  and 
for  every  act  of  voluntary  poverty  or  self-sacrifice  of 
any  kind  it  has  undertaken.  Undying  fidelity  to  that 
truth  accounts  for  the  turmoils  at  St.  George's  in  the 
East ;  for  Pusey  silenced  in  his  pulpit ;  for  Keble 
banished  to  the  seclusion  of  a  country  village,  and 
going  to  his  grave  without  ecclesiastical  preferment  or 
higher  collegiate  degree  :  for  Bennett  hurried  away  by 
friends  from  the  mob;  for  Purchas  cut  down  in  the 
prime  of  life  and  sent  to  his  grave  ;  for  Mahan  cross- 
ing an  ocean  to  defend  himself  before  the  Trustees  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  in  the  matter  of 
hearing  confessions;  for  Mackonochie  suspended  and 
silenced  again  and  again  ;  for  the  laboring  men  going 
forth  from  the  "  Pooh  !  pooh  !  "  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  out  of  Lambeth  Palace  gates,  and  organ- 
izing by  thousands  in  every  town  of  England  for  the 
defence  of  Catholicity ;  and  last  and  latest,  for  Arthur 
Tooth's  utterance  to  the  Bishop  of  Rochester,  "  I  will 
not  obey  your  civil  court;  for  I  will  not  render  unto 
Caesar  the  things  that  are  God's." 


TJie  Anglican  Communion.  275 

The  movement  has  never  been  understood  by  its 
opponents,  and  they  have  struggled  against  it  wildly. 
They  have  resisted  its  logical  conclusions  instead  of 
grappling  with  its  central  premise.  The  issue  is  be- 
tween Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism. 

For  three  hundred  years,  the  popular  Religions  of 
the  day  had  been  subtly  undermining  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation,  until  that  doctrine  had  virtually 
disappeared  from  the  belief  of  Churchmen.  It  fol- 
lowed from  this  popular  teaching,  indirectly,  indeed, 
but  surely,  that  there  was,  after  all,  "  little  reason  for 
the  Son  of  God  becoming  man,  other  than  that  He 
might  have  a  human  body  in  which  to  satisfy  the  re- 
quirement of  the  Jewish  Law,  that  without  shedding 
of  blood  there  is  no  remission."*  No  sermon  was  a 
sermon  unless  the  rays  of  its  thoughts  were  made  to 
converge  at  last  on  the  Atonement  of  Calvary  and 
that  alone.  We  were,  indeed,  lost  without  the  blessed 
Atonement ;  but  fatal  error  came  under  its  holy  gar- 
ments. 

First,  as  a  corollary  of  this  preaching  of  the  Atone- 
ment only,  subjective  faith  in  the  Atoning  Blood, — 
i.  e.,  a  tearful  interior  apprehension  by  the  sinner  that 
Christ  died  for  him  personally  on  the  Cross,  was  urged 
♦  The  London  "  Church  Review." 


276  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

universally,  perpetually,  and  to  all  practical  intents 
exclusively  on  the  acceptance  of  man.  Without  this 
faith  he  had  nothing ;  with  it  he  had  all.  This  could 
not,  and  did  not  fail  to  obscure,  to  greater  or  less  de- 
gree, the  necessity  of  good  works.  Nightly  self-exam- 
ination as  to  what,  precisely,  one's  acts  and  thoughts 
and  words  had  been  each  day,  sank  into  logical  unim- 
portance and  finally  into  neglect.  The  general  impres- 
sion that  one  was  a  sinner,  took  the  place  of  knowledge 
of  one's  particular  sins  ;  acknowledgment  and  confes- 
sion that  one  was  a  sinner,  took  the  place  of  acknowl- 
edgment and  confession  of  one's  sins.  Absolution  of 
one's  sins  became  logically  unnecessary ;  care  over  the 
soul,  sick  with  definite  sins,  attacked  with  definite  temp- 
tations, and  the  nursing  and  training  of  the  sin-sick 
soul  ceased  with  the  fall  of  the  lesser  Sacrament  of  Ab- 
solution ;  carelessness  of  watch  over  acts  and  words 
and  thoughts,  grew  to  greater  or  less  extent,  until  at 
last  we  have  the  wide-spread  result  in  fearfiil  national 
statistics. 

Then  again,  it  was  man's  spirit  alone  that  could 
exercise  this  required  interior  apprehension  and  this 
application  of  the  Atonement  to  one's  self.  Hence 
the  spirit  came  to  be  all  in  all  in  the  matter  of  salva- 
tion, and  the  body  nothing,  as  either  an  aid  or  a  hin 


The  Anglican  Communion.  277 

drance,  in  making  one's  calling  and  election  sure.  It 
is  the  old  story  of  an  excess  of  one  truth,  unmodified 
and  unrestrained  by  another,  resulting  in  error.  A 
thousand  salutary  restraints  of  the  body,  therefore, 
disappeared.  The  eye,  the  ear,  the  hand,  the  tongue 
were  neglected.  Fasting  fell  into  desuetude  ;  for  the 
body  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  that  "  Spiritual  " 
religion  which  was  summed  up  in  merely  apprehend- 
ing Christ  as  one's  Saviour,  and  so  being  saved.  St. 
Paul's  "  I  keep  my  body  under  and  bring  it  into  sub- 
jection," "  in  watchings  often,  in  fastings  often,"  "  lest 
when  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a 
castaway,"  grew  to  be  a  dead  letter.  Christ's  *'  This 
kind  goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting,"  was  as 
though  He  had  never  said  it. 

Furthermore,  what  was  called  "  spiritual  worship  " 
took  the  place  of  the  worship  of  the  whole  man  in 
body  and  soul.  Forms,  liturgies  and  the  Visible 
Church  disappeared ;  for  matter  had  been  decon- 
secrated ;  churches  fell  into  decay  and  squalor  ;  and 
the  worship  of  Almighty  God  was  made  cold  and 
gloomy  to  the  heart  of  child  and  man,  and  contempti- 
ble in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  Families  became  pray- 
erless.  Time  was,  when  nobody  thought  of  going  to 
bed  at  night  or  rising  in  the  morning  without  saying 


2jS  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

his  prayers.  Now,  not  merely  thousands  but  millions 
in  England,  America  and  Germany,  go  prayerless  to 
bed,  and  rise  in  the  morning  and  enter  prayerless 
upon  a  new  day.  With  decay  of  worship  came,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  decay  of  godliness,  with  all  its  atten- 
dant evils  ;  the  absence  of  the  poor  from  God's  house, 
the  neglect  of  the  poor,  their  ignorance  and  practical 
heathenism. 

Then  again,  with  faith  in  the  Atoning  Cross  the  soli- 
tary thing  needful,  a  mere  natural  memory  of  the  past 
tragedy  on  Calvary  took  the  place  of  the  supernatural 
and  perpetually  recurring  Sacrifice  of  the  Altar,  in 
which  is  presented,  in  a  Consecration  Prayer  addressed 
to  Almighty  God  (and  not  in  a  mere  instruction  to 
roan)  a  Memorial  to  God  the  Father.  "  Wherefore  with 
these  Thy  Holy  Gifts  which  we  offer  unto  Thee,  we 
do  make  here  before  Thy  Divine  Majesty^  the  Memo- 
rial Thy  Son  hath  commanded  us  to  make."  The  five 
lesser  Sacraments  fell  out  entirely  from  Christianity  \ 
and  the  whole  character  of  Sunday  assemblages 
changed.  Instead  of  presenting  to  the  world  a  sol- 
emn, Sacrificial  and  Sacramental  worship  offered  to 
Almighty  God,  they  presented  the  aspect  of  a  congre- 
gation seated  before  a  pulpit  from  which  the  all-suffi 
cient  Justification  by  faith  in  the  Atonement  was  sol 


The  Anglican  Communion.  279 

emnly  and  impressively  urged.  As  a  logical  conse- 
quence, sermons  increased  in  number,  and  men  began 
to  abolish  the  only  service  the  Lord  had  especially 
commanded ;  Eucharists  sank  from  daily  to  weekly, 
from  weekly  to  monthly,  from  monthly  to  quarterly, 
from  quarterly,  in  some  cases  to  yearly  or  less  seldom, 
and  with  the  Friends  they  disappeared  entirely.  Men 
love  Christ,  and  will  always  crowd  to  Him  when  He 
comes  ;  but  with  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  ban- 
ished from  the  Altar,  and  with  the  disappearance  of 
the  Altar  itself,  Sunday  assemblages  grew  thinner  ex- 
cept under  the  electrical  power  of  the  popular 
preacher,  always  a  rare  personage.  Daily  prayer 
ceased  ;  and  churches  were  closed  six  days  out  of  the 
seven.  With  the  fall  of  prayers,  public  and  private, 
and  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism  fell  also.  Time  was,  when  every  child  was 
of  course  baptised.  From  a  holy  and  tremendous 
thing,  Baptism,  though  solemnly  commanded  by  God, 
fell  logically  in  the  estimation  of  the  masses  into  a 
mere  form  by  no  means  of  great  importance.  A  com- 
paratively non-church-going  community  became,  to  a 
large  extent,  not  only  a  prayerless  community  but  also 
one  thoughtless  of  religious  subjects  and  careless  of 
religious  truth.     And  then  followed  the  consequences : 


28o  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

worldliness,  the  hasting  to  be  rich,  extravagance, 
gambling,  defalcations,  bribery,  divorces,  infanticide 
and  foeticide ;  Roman  Catholics  left  mainly  to  popu- 
late the  country  with  their  children,  through  our  great 
Herodian  sin. 

Again,  if  a  man  was  saved  when  he  could  at  last 
by  an  interior  process  apprehend  the  Saviour  as  dying 
on  the  Cross  for  him  personally,  what  more  was 
needed  ?  Saved  is  saved  ;  full  is  full.  The  distinc- 
tion, therefore,  between  the  precepts  for  all  and  the 
counsels  for  the  few  who  can  bear  them,  disappeared 
from  the  public  apprehension.  Efforts,  therefore,  after 
any  higher  life  by  rare  souls  ceased  ;  and,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  Sisterhoods  and  Brotherhoods,  which  ars 
built  upon  that  distinction,  became  an  impertinence, 
and  at  last  an  offence.  Hence  that  ethereal  phenome- 
non in  the  soul,  rare  sanctity,  as  distinguished  from 
eminent  moral  goodness,  disappeared.  With  the 
disappearance  of  the  skilled  religious,  as  practical 
agents,  as  the  right  and  left  arms  of  the  Church,  and 
with  that  training  and  life  of  theirs  abolished  which 
makes  them  skilled,  a  crude  and  mercenary,  a  compara- 
tively ineffective,  expensive  and  malapert  treatment  0/ 
misery,  poverty,  illness  and  ignorance  followed. 


The  Anglican  Communion.  281 

II.  Bui  time  forbids  that  we  should  go  on  and 
trace  all  the  steps  of  disaster  and  decay  leading  out 
from  a  false  view  of  the  Incarnation. 

Nay,  there  were  other  and  great  reasons  for  the 
Son  of  God  becoming  man  than  that  He  might  merely 
possess  a  human  body  in  which  to  be  crucified,  and 
then  leave  a  Bible  and  a  pulpit  behind  Him.  And 
the  object  of  the  Catholic  movement,  from  its  first 
phase  in  1833  to  its  last  to-day,  is  to  re-preach  and  to 
restore,  in  all  its  practical  applications  and  conse- 
quences, the  true  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  Having 
considered  the  process  of  decay,  let  us  now  consider 
some  of  the  steps  in  the  process  of  reconstruction. 

Many  excellent  people  suppose  that  this  great 
Catholic  movement  begins  and  ends  in  Ritualism. 
Ritual  is  not,  indeed,  utterly  unimportant.  As  the 
stars  and  stripes  stood,  in  the  late  war,  as  a  symbol 
of  the  great  principles  of  nationality  and  union,  so  that 
if  any  one  hauled  them  down  he  was  to  be  "  shot  on 
the  spot,"  so  analogously  is  it  with  Ritual.  But  al- 
though it  is  of  less  importance  than  other  things  in  the 
movement,  permit  me  first  to  say  a  word  or  two  on 
Ritual,  since  it  is  that  part  of  the  movement  which  is 
most  conspicuous  to  the  world,  and  has  led  the  world  to 
misunderstand  and  belittle  the  great  movement  itsel£ 


282  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation  involves  many  things  ;  more  than  can 
now  be  enumerated.  But  one  of  those  things  is  this, 
namely  :  the  Incarnation, — the  Son  of  God  descending 
and  taking  to  Himself  man's  nature,  with  human  body 
and  soul  subsisting, — means,  not  only  the  reconsecra- 
tion  of  the  soul,  but  also  the  reconsecration  both  of 
the  body  and  of  all  matter  to  the  service  and  glory  of 
God.  That  on  Mount  Tabor  the  Flesh  of  the  Lord 
was  transfigured  we  readily  remember ;  but  it  is  an 
amazing  thought  that  the  very  earthly  garments  He 
wore  were  also  transfigured.  As,  then,  one  result  of 
the  Incarnation  was  the  reconsecration  both  of  the 
body  and  of  all  matter  to  the  service  and  glory  of 
God,  it  was  logically  inevitable.  "  that  this  great 
Catholic  movement  should  make  a  place  in  itself 
somewhere  for  external  Ritual."  And  Ritual  has 
been  defended  by  Catholics  when  it  has  been  at- 
tacked, it  has  been  more  firmly  insisted  on  when  ridi- 
culed, because  they  cannot  permit  the  capture  of  any 
outwork  in  the  unbroken  circle  of  those  defences 
which  guard  the  vital  central  doctrine  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. The  old  yellow  and  white-wash,  which  Puritan- 
ism applied  to  church  walls,  is  therefore  scraped  off ; 
churches  are  restored  ;  Altars  are  set  up  and  glorified 


The  Anglican  Communion.  283 

with  lights  and  embroidery  and  gold,  with  spotless 
linen,  the  flower,  the  garnet  and  the  emerald  ;  vest- 
ments are  worn  ;  congregations  kneel ;  and,  in  gen- 
eral, the  public  worship  of  God  is  made  more  glorious 
and  grand  by  song  and  procession  and  adoration  ;  for 
in  the  Incarnation  the  body  of  man  is  reconsecrated 
as  a  creature  of  God  to  the  glory  of  its  Maker. 
''  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God  /'  "  Vouch- 
safe to  direct,  sanctify  and  govern  "  (not  only  our 
hearts,  but)  "  our  bodies  "  (also)  "  in  the  ways  of  Thy 
Laws." 

But  there  is  also  involved  in  the  re-preaching  of  the 
Incarnation  what  is  of  more  importance :  /.  e.  the  re- 
appearance and  the  nurture  of  that  Supernatural  and 
Sacramental  phenomenon,  the  Inner  Spiritual  Life  of 
the  Soul.  When  this  Spiritual  life  is  well  developed, 
we  have  something  higher  than  mere  goodness,  and 
different  in  quality.  We  have  Sainthood.  Sainthood 
does  not  pause  at  eminent  morality,  but  taking  it  for 
its  starting  point  goes  on  to  something  more  ethereal. 

What  is  this  Spiritual  life  ?  It  is  the  union  within 
each  man  of  the  Divine  Life  with  the  human.  That 
union  began  in  the  God-Man,  and  is  imparted  to  each 
of  us  through  Baptism.  That  is  to  say.  Almighty 
God,  having  in  the  Incarnation  imparted  the  Divine 


284  Retiaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

Nature  to  the  Human,  so  that  the  two  should  be  one 
in  the  Person  of  Christ,  extends  the  process  by  which 
the  Divine  Nature  is  incarnated,  by  planting  a  germ  of 
that  Christ-nature  in  each  other  human  soul  at  Bap- 
tism ;  so  that  Christ  becomes  "  one  flesh  "  not  only  in 
an  abstract  sense  with  mankind,  but  concretely  with 
each  human  being,  to  whom  at  first  He  gave  His  nature 
in  germ,  and  then  afterwards  feeds  it  with  His  Body 
and  Blood.  Thus  His  Body  Natural  grows  out  and 
becomes  His  Body  Mystical,  the  Church.  This  germ, 
entering  into  the  Soul  and  becoming  one  with  it, 
becomes  its  divine  and  Supernatural  life.  Without  it 
the  soul  possesses  only  its  natural  and  moral  life,  and 
is  therefore  dead  supernaturally. 

Now  this  spiritual  life  is,  I  say,  to  be  imparted  after 
birth  to  the  soul.  It  is  to  be  superadded  to  the  moral 
life  which  we  get  from  Adam.  It  is  given  by  God  in 
Baptism.  Hence  there  is  involved  in  the  re-preaching 
of  the  Incarnation  a  revival  also  of  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism  as  a  tremendous  supernatural  reality,  as  an 
agent  through  which  God  works  on  earth. 

This  sacramental,  supernatural  life  is  afterwards  to 
be  strengthened,  nurtured,  developed  ;  otherwise  it  will 
remain  in  its  mere  germ  state,  to  all  practical  intents 
useless.     Hence  there  is  involved  in  the  re-preaching 


The  Anglican  Communion.  285 

of  the  Incarnation  the  revival  of  the  other  Sacra- 
ments, the  five  lesser  as  well  as  the  two  greater.  For, 
first,  this  spiritual  life  must  be  strengthened  ;  hence 
more  care  by  Catholics  in  the  matter  of  Confirmation. 
It  must  also  be  fed  with  appropriate  Spiritual  food ; 
hence  the  Catholic  movement  calls  back  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar  from  yearly  celebrations  to 
monthly,  to  weekly,  to  daily. 

But  you  may  ask,  How  happens  it  that  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Absolution  is  revived,  and  the  rubric  in  the 
English  Prayer  Book  concerning  confession  is  obeyed 
once  more,  instead  of  remaining  a  dead  letter  ?  The 
answer  is  as  follows  :  It  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
and  consummate  blessing  of  the  Incarnation,  with  its 
necessary  Sacramental  System,  that  it  brings  God  into 
actual  contact  with  man.  This  contact  occurred  first 
in  the  God-Man  ;  and  is  extended  to  us  through  the 
Sacraments.  It  is  in  the  Sacraments  that  we  touch 
God.  It  is  in  Baptism  that  the  Divine  germ  passes 
into  incorporation  with  the  Soul.  It  is  in  Communion 
that  real  contact  between  Christ  and  the  Soul  takes 
place,  so  that  each  shall  not  only  touch,  but  dwell  in 
the  other.  It  is  in  Confirmation  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  in  contact  with  the  Soul.  So,  too,  there  is  the  con 
tact  between  God  and  the  Soul  in  the  Sacrament  of 


286  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

Absolution.  Hence  confession  in  that  Sacrament  is 
perceived  to  be  the  true,  direct  and  immediate  con- 
fession to  God,  which  Christianity  and  Chrijtianity 
only  vouchsafes ;  while  confession  in  the  closet,  in- 
stead of  being  the  direct,  is  after  all  that  indirect  and 
distant  mode  of  confession  to  God,  which  the  heathen 
and  the  infidel  could  always  have  used,  and  which  the 
non-christian  can  use  to-day ;  it  is  not  distinctively 
Christian.  It  is  the  way  of  natural  religion.  But 
nay,  think  we,  Christianity  vouchsafes  some  higher 
and  better  and  more  immediate  and  holier  privilege 
than  Natural  Religion  or  heathenism  could  boast.  It 
is  a  layman's  question  ;  no  one  has  a  right  to  compel 
any  one  to  confess  j  and  if  a  man  wishes  to  confess, 
no  one  has  a  right  to  deprive  him  of  his  right.  And 
the  laymen  in  England  and  America,  in  increasing 
thousands,  are  rising  and  demanding  their  right  to 
confess  (as  they  feel)  directly  to  God  in  His  Sacra- 
ment of  Absolution,  in  which  He  vouchsafes  contact 
with  man  ;  and  to  receive  absolution  directly  from  God 
in  that  Sacrament  through  the  hands  of  their  Priests. 
We  go  to  Penance,  not  in  order  to  confess  our  sins  to 
a  man  ;  but  rather  do  we  go  to  confess  our  sins  in 
A  Holy  Sacrament  to  God. 

Again,   this   Sacramental   life   must   be    trained 


The  Attgiican  Communion.  287 

Merely  preaching  to  it  may  instruct,  and  please,  but 
it  does  not  train,  assist,  guide  and  discipline  it  in  the 
use  of  its  faculties.  The  little  child,  the  apprentice, 
needs  to  be  trained  and  helped,  not  simply  to  be 
talked  to.  The  spiritual  life  is  awkward  at  first.  How- 
to  resist  different  kinds  of  temptations,  how  to  accquire 
the  use  of  its  newly-given  and  germinal  faculties,  how 
to  overcome  different  sins  and  shades  and  combina- 
tions of  sins,  is  not  known  to  it  by  instinct.  The 
Christian  life  has  been  called  by  great  Saints  a  diffi- 
cult trade  to  learn  ;  with  labor,  in  much  awkwardness 
at  first,  and  with  persistent  care  and  patience.  Now  the 
detection  of  Spiritual  diseases  and  their  combinations, 
and  the  adjustment  to  each  disease  of  its  various 
remedies  and  combination  of  remedies,  are  not  known 
to  the  soul  by  instinct  ;  a  thousand  mistakes  have 
been  made  in  the  past  eighteen  centuries  in  these  re- 
spects, and,  having  been  discovered  to  be  mistakes, 
need  not  be  made  again.  It  is  barbarism  for  each 
generation,  and  for  each  man,  ignoring  the  past,  to 
begin  all  over  again  where  the  previous  generation 
began,  in  the  treatment  of  his  spiritual  case.  It  were 
like  abolishing  the  medical  profession  and  medical 
libraries,  and  each  man  in  his  ignorance  and  unskill- 
fulness  treating  himself  when  sick  physically.     Hence 


288  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

there  is  further  involved  in  the  re-preaching  of  the  In 
carnation,  that  revival  of  the  whole  science  of  Ascetic 
and   Moral  Theology  which  the  Catholic  movement  is 
effecting ;  a  department  of  theology  which  treats  of  the 
cure  of  sin  and  spiritual  disease. 

Hence,  too,  there  follows  a  restoration  of  the 
clergy  from  their  position  as  mere  preachers  and  so-  . 
cial  visitors,  to  their  Apostolic  and  Catholic  position 
as  Priests,  as  trainers  and  physicians  of  the  Spiritual 
life.  There  follows  also  a  revival  of  the  sharp  dis- 
tinction between  clergy  and  laity,  and  of  the  tender 
relationship  of  clerical  Fatherhood  and  lay  Sonship, 
with  that  perfect  confidence  between  confessor  and 
penitent  which  their  mutual  silence  alone  could  give  ; 
a  silence  as  deep  as  that  of  the  interstellar  spaces. 
The  Catholic  Church  is  one  continuous,  visible,  or- 
ganic Body,  the  invisible  Soul  of  Which  is  the  God- 
Man,  Christ.  If  Christ  is  not  in  and  one  with  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  a  soul  is  in  and  one  with  its 
body,  then  the  Church  is  a  dead  body.  But  if  Christ 
is  literally  on  earth  in  His  Body  Mystical,  the  Church, 
to  suppose  that  He  cannot  speak  the  word  of  pardon 
to  the  kneeling,  repentant,  confessing  sinner,  is  tc 
suppose  that  Christ  is,  as  to  one  of  the  organs  of  His 
Body  Mystical  and  Visible,  stricken  with  paralysis. 


The  Anglica7i  Communion.  289 

Involved  in  all  the  above  is  necessarily  the  revival 
also  of  daily  self-examination,  of  counsel  and  direc- 
tion^  of  the  strengthening  aid  of  specific  penances, 
each  appropriate  to  its  end  in  the  soul.  Thus  the 
Catholic  movement  centres  all  its  efforts  and  subor- 
dinates all  its  means,  external  and  internal,  upon  the 
inner  divine  life  of  the  soul,  to  rectify  and  to  build  it 
up  in  true  sanctity,  in  humility,  meekness,  charity, 
patience  and  purity.  All  this,  too,  accounts  for  the 
missions  which  Catholics  preach  to  the  careless  and 
the  sinner ;  and  for  the  retreats  they  hold  for  clergy, 
for  merchants,  for  women,  for  clerks,  for  the  laboring 
man  ;  that  the  earnest  soul  may  take  account  of  itself 
and  deepen  its  spiritual  life. 

Again,  if  sins  are  the  sickness  and  death  of  the 
spiritual  life,  they  come  through  temptation ;  and 
temptations  reach  the  soul  through  the  body.  The 
senses  are  open  doors  through  which  they  enter. 
Hence  the  re-preaching  of  the  Incarnation  involves  a 
restoration  again  of  the  restraint  of  the  body,  which  is 
another  phenomenon  of  the  movement.  The  eye,  the 
ear,  the  tongue,  the  touch,  the  taste,  must  be  guarded, 
restrained  and  trained  ;  the  feet,  that  they  walk  not  to 
sin  j  the  hands,  that  they  search  not  for  sin.  This 
involves  also  the  revival  of  fasting,  and  indeed  of  all 
13 


290  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

other  points  of  asceticism  which  Catholicity  urges. 
Crucify  thyself,  crucify  thyself;  "If  thou  wouldst  in- 
deed see  clearly,"  she  cries,  "pluck  out  thine  eyes 
and  become  blind.  If  thou  wouldst  hear  well,  be 
deaf.  If  thou  wouldst  speak  well,  be  dumb.  If  thou 
wouldst  walk  well,  cut  off  thy  feet.  If  thou  wouldst 
love  well,  hate  thyself.  If  thou  wouldst  work  well, 
cut  off  thy  hands.  If  thou  wouldst  live  well,  make 
thyself  die.  If  thou  wouldst  gain,  learn  to  lose.  If 
thou  wouldst  be  rich,  become  poor.  If  thou  wouldst 
live  in  pleasure,  afflict  thyself.  If  thou  wouldst  be 
secure,  have  perpetual  fear.  If  thou  wouldst  be  hon- 
ored, despise  thyself  and  honor  those  who  despise 
thee.     If  thou  wouldst  be  at  rest,  work." 

Again,  if  it  follows  from  and  is  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  that  the  Holy  Sacraments 
are  the  medicine  and  the  strengthening  food  of  the 
Spiritual  life,  it  equally  follows  that  prayer  is  the  very 
breath  of  its  existence.  Catholicity,  therefore,  un- 
looses the  tongue  of  prayer  once  more.  The  Confra- 
ternity of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  and  other  Confrater- 
nities are  formed  for  combined  prayer ;  churches  aro 
re-opened  on  week-days  for  Daily  Morning  and  Eve- 
ning Prayer  and  for  private  prayer  and  meditation. 
This  accounts,  too,  for  the  fact  that  Catholicity  ha* 


The  Anglican  Communion.  291 

flooded  our  church  bookstores  with  hundreds  of  nevs 
books  of  sweetest  and  most  varied  devotions  ;  treasu- 
ries, litanies,  chaplets,  crowns,  and  rosaries  of  prayer 
follow  each  other  in  quick  profusion.  This,  too,  ac- 
counts for  the  further  phenomenon  of  the  setting  up 
again  of  the  lost  arts  of  mental  prayer,  of  Meditation, 
and  of  Contemplation,  of  Spiritual  Communion,  of 
recollection,  and  of  the  application  of  the  senses  to 
spiritual  objects.  For  while  by  nature  the  senses,  and 
the  soul's  four  faculties  of  memory,  understanding,  affec 
tions,  and  will,  are  ever  busying  themselves  on  earthly 
things  and  themes,  and  so  taking  an  earthly  hue  and 
fabric,  Catholicity  teaches  not  only  the  four  faculties 
but  even  the  senses  also  to  apply  themselves  to  spir- 
itual objects  \  to  Christ,  His  words,  works,  birth, 
death,  and  all  His  other  mysteries  ;  in  order  that  the 
soul,  the  senses,  the  whole  man,  indeed,  may  become, 
so  to  speak,  steeped  and  saturated  with  the  things  of 
spirit  and  of  Heaven,  and  not  be  left  taking  the  hue 
and  fabric  of  the  things  only  of  earth  and  of  time. 
Who  ever,  in  the  Georgian  Era,  heard  of  such  things 
as  Scientific  Meditation,  Spiritual  Communion  and 
the  application  of  the  senses  to  spirit?  Verily  the 
last  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  witnessing  a  reli- 
gious revolution,  destined  to  add   once  more  to  the 


292  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

Kalendar  of  the  Saints.  With  the  restoration  of  fast- 
ing and  prayer  follows  of  course  the  observance  of 
Fridays,  Lent,  the  Ember  days,  and  indeed  of  the 
whole  Kalendar.  Again  are  the  English  and  other 
Saints  thought  of,  and  their  lives  lifted  out  of  forget- 
ful ness.  No  longer  can  it  be  said,  our  Mother,  the 
Church,  sorrowfully  buries  Her  illustrious  children, 
and  we,  their  brothers,  make  haste  to  cast  away  all 
tender  mementoes  of  them,  and  take  pride  in  obliter- 
ating even  their  names  and  memories. 

Again,  if  the  Holy  Sacraments  are  the  medicine 
and  food  of  the  spiritual  life  and  prayer  the  very 
breath  of  its  existence,  it  equally  follows  that  practi- 
cal works,  in  all  the  fourteen  spiritual  and  corporal 
deeds  of  mercy,  are  its  exercise,  absolutely  necessary 
to  its  vigor  and  health.  I  know  that  this  suggests  at 
once  those  other  phenomena  of  the  movement,  not 
only  the  revival  of  Sisterhoods  and  Brotherhoods,  but 
also  the  new-born  energy  with  which  the  movement 
has  planted  its  Churches  in  the  purlieus  of  cities  ; 
organized  workingmen's  guilds,  clubs  and  reading 
rooms,  convalescent  homes,  creches^  indeed  the  hun- 
dred and  one  new  appliances  of  practical  good  which 
have  sprung  up  under  the  magic  wand  of — "mere 
Ritualism  and  nonsense." 


The  Anglican  Communion.  293 

But  a  word,  at  least,  in  passing,  on  the  occult 
current  that  has  led  out  from  the  Incarnation  into  all 
this  practical  energy  among  the  poor  and  suffering  and 
ignorant.  The  moment  the  true  doctrine  of  the  In- 
carnation, with  its  spiritual  life  and  its  Sacraments, 
rises  before  the  mind,  that  moment  there  springs  up 
again,  by  necessity,  from  its  fallen  estate  the  distinc- 
tion between  precepts  and  counsels,  which  are  the 
rules  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  which  divide  it  into  its 
two  departments,  the  Religious  life,  namely,  of  the 
Sister  and  the  Brother,  and  the  secular  life  of  the 
ordinary  Christian  who  lives  in  the  world.  And  then, 
with  communities  of  Religious  restored  to  the  Church, 
something  else  of  the  greatest  value  follows  and  is 
restored  also.  For,  by  an  inevitable  process,  too 
long  to  describe  now,  a  spiritual  stamina  and  sus- 
tained power  are  accumulated  in  the  Sisters  and 
Brothers,  and  a  corresponding  new-born  practical 
skill  in  the  exercise  of  the  works  of  mercy  is  acquired 
by  them ;  a  stamina  and  skill  which  do  not  confine 
themselves  to  the  Sisterhoods  and  Brotherhoods,  but 
which,  partly  through  the  instruction  and  example  of 
the  Regulars  and  partly  by  a  use  of  the  same  new 
spiritual  causes  that  have  given  them  this  skill  and 
stamina,   flow    down    to    some    extent    and    spread 


294  Renaissance  of  Catholicity  in 

ihrough  the  secular  part  of  the  Church  also.  So  that 
both  Regulars  and  Seculars  (or  the  Trained  and  the 
Untrained),  rousing  with  a  new  energy  and  hope,  go 
Ibrth  hand  in  hand  to  the  work  among  the  poor,  the 
gnorant  and  the  afflicted,  with  that  aptitude,  faculty, 
Eustained  power,  and  self-sacrificing  spirit,  with  that 
tove  of  God  and  of  man,  and  with  that  marvellous 
effectiveness,  which  have  marked  the  movement  more 
and  more  as  time  advances,  and  to  which  the  Church 
had  been  a  stranger  for  over  two  centuries.  Behold 
earnest  Bishops  beginning  to  be  desirous  of  having 
Sisters  work  in  their  dioceses.  Verily  there  is  a 
change  since  that  time  when  one  of  the  earliest  of  our 
Sisters  entered  St.  Alban's  Church,  Holborn,  covered 
from  bonnet  to  the  skirts  of  her  dress  with  the  spittle 
of  the  mob. 

Much  more  might  be  said.  The  Sacrificial  aspect 
of  the  Blessed  Eucharist ;  the  charity  of  prayers  for 
the  dead  which  is  due  from  the  living,  and  the  Christian 
fine  arts  have  not  been  forgotten  ;  but  this  discourse 
already  taxes  the  patience  by  its  length.  Nor  is  the 
adoration  paid  by  Catholics  to  Our  Blessed  Lord 
present  in  His  Holy  Sacrament  forgotten.  I  may 
visit  a  person's  library  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  a 
book  ;  but,  though  I  did  not  go  merely  for  wishing 


The  Anglican  Communion,  295 

him  the  compliments  of  the  day,  I  should  nevertheless 
be  deemed  guilty  of  a  great  discourtesy  should  I 
not  salute  him  in  the  customary  manner  on  entering. 
And  so  the  Catholic  feels,  that  even  though  he  ap- 
proaches the  Lord  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  in- 
estimable bounty  of  His  Body  and  Blood,  to  do  so 
without  offering  incidentally  that  solemn,  adoring 
salutation  which  is  due  from  the  creature  to  his  God, 
would  be,  to  say  the  least,  not  the  highest  instinct  of 
tenderness,  of  recollection,  and  of  humility.  John 
Keble  has  said  that  it  seems  to  him  as  impossible  for 
Faith,  as  it  beholds  Christ  in  the  Blessed  Eucharist, 
to  keep  from  adoring  Him,  as  it  is  for  a  mother  to 
help  loving  her  child  when  she  contemplates  it  in  its 
cradle. 

But  enough  has  been  hinted  and  suggested,  I  trust, 
to  show  you,  that,  of  all  the  phenomena  of  this  great 
revival,  not  one  is  fortuitous,  not  one  is  erratic,  but 
all  grow  logically  and  have  come  irresistibly  out  of 
the  re-preaching  of  the  Early  Church  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation ;  not  even  excepting  the  translation  into 
English  of  the  works  of  the  Early  Fathers,  that  every 
man  majr  read  and  see  for  himself  that  the  Catholic 
revival  is  nothing  other  than  the  re-birth  and  re-pre- 
sentation in  its  integrity  of  Early  Church  and  Apos 


896  The  Anglican  Communion, 

tolic  Catholic  Christianity,  which  has  been  in  some 
vital  respects  fearfully  contorted  by  Rome,  and  i» 
others  destroyed  by  Protestantism. 


The  £Na 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


OUL 1 6  2002 


12,000(11/95) 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


C0D31flM3bS 


